Out-of-office email not a 'final straw' for constructive dismissal claim
A BSL communicator with 12 years' service lost her constructive dismissal claim after the tribunal found that an out-of-office reply, which delayed her grievance appeal outcome, was not a breach of trust and confidence.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #constructive-dismissal
- #mutual-trust-and-confidence
- #final-straw
- #grievance-procedure
- #unauthorised-absence
- #no-work-no-pay
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a BSL Communicator/Instructor from 1 September 2010 to 19 July 2022.
- The claimant was not contractually entitled to work in the motorsports department; it was her preferred area.
- The claimant resigned on 20 January 2022 after being told she would not work in motorsports, but the respondent offered alternative options.
- The claimant raised a grievance which was not upheld, and she appealed; the appeal outcome was delayed due to further investigations.
- The claimant received an out-of-office reply from the appeal officer on 19 July 2022, which she considered the final straw.
- The claimant was on unauthorised absence from February to July 2022 and was not paid wages for that period.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
Claimant started working for the respondent as a BSL Communicator/Instructor.
-
Started working in motorsports
Claimant began working approximately 1.5 days per week in the motorsports department, her preferred area.
-
Sickness absence began
Claimant went off sick and remained absent until 19 January 2022.
-
Returned to work and learned of timetable change
Claimant returned from sickness and was told she would not be working in the L2 Motorsport class; another employee had been allocated hours there.
-
Claimant resigned
Claimant submitted a resignation letter citing personal reasons, but later said it was due to the motorsports issue.
-
Telephone call with HR
Claimant spoke to Mr Lovatt-Staines; she alleged he disregarded her concerns, but the tribunal found he did not.
-
Outcome of HR investigation
Mr Lovatt-Staines communicated his findings; the claimant was unhappy with the wording but the tribunal found no breach.
-
Claimant raised formal grievance
Claimant submitted a grievance about various issues including the motorsports allocation.
-
Grievance meeting held
Claimant met with Lisa Hartley to discuss her grievance.
-
Grievance outcome
Lisa Hartley sent the outcome letter, not upholding the grievance.
-
Appeal lodged
Claimant appealed the grievance outcome to Steven Downham-Clarke.
-
Appeal meeting held
Claimant attended an appeal meeting with Mr Downham-Clarke.
-
Final straw: out-of-office reply
Claimant received an automatic out-of-office reply from Mr Downham-Clarke, indicating he was on leave until 1 August 2022. She resigned the same day.
-
Appeal outcome sent
The appeal outcome was sent to the claimant, but after she had already resigned.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the college's conduct – including a work allocation decision, handling of a grievance, and an automatic out-of-office email – destroyed mutual trust and confidence, entitling the employee to resign and claim constructive unfair dismissal.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims, including constructive unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, and unlawful deduction of wages.
- The tribunal found that the college's actions did not breach the implied term of mutual trust and confidence. The work allocation was a reasonable management decision, the grievance was properly handled, and the out-of-office email was not a 'final straw' because the appeal outcome was sent shortly after.
- The claimant was on unauthorised absence from February to July 2022 and was not entitled to wages for that period.
- No compensation was awarded.
Lessons & takeaways
- A single minor incident, such as an out-of-office email, is unlikely to be a 'final straw' unless it is part of a serious course of conduct.
- Employers can make reasonable work allocation decisions without breaching trust, even if the employee prefers a different role.
- Employees should wait for the outcome of a grievance appeal before resigning, unless the delay is unreasonable and damaging.
- Unauthorised absence means no pay – employees must attend work or have authorised leave to be paid.
When an out-of-office email is not the final straw
This case shows how difficult it can be to prove constructive dismissal, even for a long-serving employee. The claimant, a BSL communicator/instructor with 12 years' service, resigned after receiving an automatic out-of-office reply from the appeal officer handling her grievance. She argued this was the 'final straw' in a series of breaches that destroyed trust and confidence.
What the college did right
The tribunal found that the college had acted reasonably throughout. The decision to allocate the claimant's preferred motorsports hours to another employee was a legitimate management decision, not a demotion. The grievance process was followed properly, and the appeal outcome – though delayed – was sent just days after the claimant resigned. The out-of-office email was a routine automatic reply, not a deliberate act to frustrate the process.
Why the claim failed
The tribunal concluded that none of the alleged acts, viewed individually or cumulatively, amounted to a breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence. The claimant had resigned too soon – before the appeal outcome was issued – and had not given the college a fair chance to resolve her concerns. The claim for unpaid wages also failed because the claimant was on unauthorised absence and not entitled to pay.
What this means for similar claims
For employees considering a constructive dismissal claim, this case is a reminder that the 'final straw' must be more than a minor irritation – it must be a serious breach of contract. Employers should ensure they follow proper procedures and communicate clearly, but a single administrative hiccup is unlikely to be fatal. The key lesson: resigning before the employer has had a reasonable opportunity to respond can undermine the entire claim.
Similar cases
Constructive dismissal claim fails after grievance process was followed
An accounts assistant who resigned after an unsatisfactory grievance outcome lost her constructive dismissal claim. The tribunal found the employer's conduct did not destroy trust and confidence.
Constructive dismissal claim fails after employee refused to return to work
A tribunal dismissed a constructive unfair dismissal claim from a quality assurance employee who resigned after refusing to return to work, finding no repudiatory breach by Vision Care Services Ltd.
Security guard's constructive dismissal claim over reduced hours fails
A security guard who resigned after his hours were cut and his grievance partially upheld lost his constructive unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found no fundamental breach of contract.
PWE sign-off delay: resignation over unauthorised absence meeting was not constructive dismissal
A graduate trainee accountant who resigned after being invited to a disciplinary meeting for unauthorised absence failed to prove constructive unfair dismissal. The tribunal found the employer's conduct did not breach trust and confidence.