Constructive dismissal claim over new Deputy Practice Manager role fails
A GP practice assistant manager with 14 years' service resigned after learning of a proposed new role, claiming constructive dismissal. The tribunal rejected her claim, finding no breach of trust and confidence.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #constructive-dismissal
- #implied-term-trust-and-confidence
- #job-title-concern
- #salary-concern
- #role-overlap
- #consultation-process
Key facts
- The claimant was employed from 1 October 2008 to 17 May 2023 as Assistant Practice Manager / Practice Secretary.
- The respondent planned to create a new Deputy Practice Manager role due to increased workload.
- The claimant was informed of the new role at her appraisal on 24 January 2023 and consulted thereafter.
- The claimant resigned on 17 May 2023, claiming constructive dismissal before the job advert was published.
- The respondent assured the claimant that her job title, role, and salary would not change.
- The tribunal found no breach of the implied term of trust and confidence.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working for the respondent.
-
Job title changed
Claimant's job title changed to Assistant Practice Manager / Practice Secretary.
-
Leadership planning meeting
Respondent agreed to create a new Deputy Practice Manager role due to increased workload.
-
Annual appraisal
Claimant was informed of the proposed new role; she said she didn't mind the title as long as salary and role unaffected.
-
Discovered draft job description
Claimant found the draft job description for Deputy Practice Manager and raised concerns.
-
Raised concerns via notification
Claimant messaged ML about discrepancies in appraisal and queries about the new role.
-
Meeting with ML
ML showed the job description to claimant; claimant took it away to mark up but never returned it.
-
Meeting with partners
Claimant met with CN and SH; they assured her no change to her title, role, or salary; claimant declined suggestions.
-
Follow-up notification
CN asked claimant for her thoughts; claimant said she was taking advice.
-
Resignation
Claimant resigned with immediate effect, claiming constructive dismissal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer's plan to create a new role, and the way it was communicated, breached the implied duty of trust and confidence, entitling the employee to resign and claim constructive unfair dismissal.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim for constructive unfair dismissal.
The key reason was that the respondent had not breached the implied term of trust and confidence. The employer had assured the claimant that her job title, role, and salary would not change, and had consulted with her before the new role was advertised. The claimant resigned before the job advert was even published, and the tribunal found no fundamental breach.
No compensation was awarded as the claim failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Constructive dismissal requires a fundamental breach of contract – simply being unhappy about a proposed new role is not enough.
- Employers who consult employees and give assurances about their existing role are likely to be acting reasonably.
- Resigning before a job advert is published may weaken a constructive dismissal claim, as there may be no actual breach yet.
- Length of service does not automatically make a claim stronger if the employer has acted fairly.
What this case shows
This case illustrates the high bar for constructive dismissal claims. The claimant, an assistant practice manager with 14 years' service, resigned after learning that her employer planned to create a new Deputy Practice Manager role. She felt this would undermine her position, despite being assured that her own job title, role, and salary would not change.
The tribunal found that the employer had acted reasonably: they consulted the claimant, held meetings to discuss her concerns, and gave clear assurances. The claimant resigned before the new role was even advertised, meaning there was no actual change to her employment terms.
What the employer did right
The respondent could have handled the situation better by involving the claimant earlier in the process. However, they did take steps to address her concerns: they met with her, explained the rationale, and confirmed her role was secure. The tribunal noted that the claimant was given the opportunity to provide feedback on the draft job description but did not return it.
Why this matters
For employees considering a constructive dismissal claim, this case is a reminder that a perceived threat to status or job title is not enough. There must be a fundamental breach of contract – such as a unilateral change to pay or duties – that destroys trust and confidence. Resigning too early, before any breach has occurred, can be fatal to the claim.
For employers, the case shows the importance of clear communication and consultation. By reassuring the employee and keeping them informed, the respondent successfully defended the claim.
Similar cases
Head of Finance loses constructive dismissal claim after refusing return to office
A tribunal has ruled that a YMCA's request for a senior manager to return to blended working did not breach her contract, dismissing her claim for constructive unfair dismissal.
Constructive dismissal claim fails: resignation after grievance not upheld
A Regulatory Officer with 10 years' service resigned claiming constructive dismissal after her grievance was not upheld. The tribunal found no breach of trust and confidence and dismissed the claim.
Material Flow Manager loses constructive dismissal claim over misleading emails to employee
A Material Flow Manager who resigned after receiving a first written warning for misleading an employee about a promotion and back pay has lost his constructive unfair dismissal claim.
Sales manager's constructive dismissal claim fails over sick pay and discipline dispute
A sales manager with 13 years' service resigned claiming loss of trust and confidence after a sick pay dispute and disciplinary warning. The tribunal rejected his constructive unfair dismissal claim, finding no fundamental breach of contract.