The claimant started working for the respondent originally as a Kitchen Supervisor in September 2017.  She resigned on 13th September 2019.   The claimant went on a period of maternity leave returning in May 2019.  On her return, there was a requirement for a finance role to be covered so she was asked to take on that role for approximately 15 hours per week with that increasing to 30 hours per week. 

The School was subject to an OFSTED which found that the school required improvement.   This required greater oversight of the financial duties and the financial role in the school was being expanded.   The post for this expanded role was not advertised yet the claimant was interviewed in August 2019.  She undertook this role at the start of September but there were issues remaining in relation to working from home due to childcare responsibilities.    

The claimant raised a number of issues before she had resigned.  This ranged from allegations against the Head Teacher making faces at her, needlessly correcting her use of English, cancelling parents’ meetings without telling the claimant, slamming the door in her face and individuals questioning the claimant’s role in the organisation.   This came to a head on 13th September when the claimant resigned by email to the Trustees and Head Teacher.  She cited that there was a ‘loss of trust’ and went on to thank some individuals for their assistance during her employment.  

The Tribunal examined these allegations against the law on constructive dismissal which requires a fundamental breach of an express or implied term of the contract of employment.   It was held that the Tribunal must take into account all of the circumstances.   This examined the fact that the Head Teacher was newly into the role and there were many issues to be resolved at the school.  It was found that there was a degree of confusion about the claimant’s role but considering that she had only just gone into it that it was expected and that it would likely have been resolved within the first few weeks.  As a result, it was found that the resignation was premature and it was not in response to a fundamental breach of contract.  Accordingly, there was no dismissal and the claim for constructive dismissal was rejected. 

Practical Lessons

This case demonstrates the law relating to constructive dismissal in action.  A series of smaller issues can lead to a fundamental breach of contract especially where it is the ‘final straw’.  However, the Tribunal clearly noted here that the threshold had not been overcome to show a fundamental breach of contract and that the resignation was ‘premature’.  It does demonstrate that there is a sliding scale and whilst the claimant may have been some way across that scale, there was still more required to make it a fundamental breach of contract.  
https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/mrs-s-avidor-v-cambridge-steiner-school-3302379-slash-2020