Following a takeover and restructuring, the claimant resigned but was unable to show evidence of there being a fundamental breach of contract. As a result, the case was dismissed.

The claimant was employed by the respondent in November 2007 as an HR officer.  She was promoted to Group Human Resources Manager on an unspecified date. The claimant had diagnoses of ADHD, rheumatoid arthritis, fibromyalgia, sleep apnoea and anxiety. The respondent accepted this.  Some steps had been put in place to allow the claimant to remain in employment such as permitting work from home and allowing additional time to complete certain tasks. 

In 2022/2023 the respondent company, in part due to the Ukraine war, was in financial difficulty. This led to several personnel leaving including the Group Operations Director.  The respondent company was sold to Mutares which specialises in purchasing distressed companies, restructuring them, and returning them to profitability for the purposes of a resale.

The claimant states that following the takeover there was a marked change in how she was treated.  That point was not rebutted or challenged. In the circumstances, it was clear that everyone’s job was at risk.   The claimant made a series of allegations in her witness statement, such as being undermined by senior officers, but many of them were not set out specifically with examples. 

In June 2024 the claimant received a redundancy at risk letter.  Following this the claimant went on sick leave with stress and anxiety. The claimant stated that she had sought voluntary redundancy and had an assurance of £250 for legal advice relating to same.  However, the claimant then stated that she was not eligible for redundancy and to the Tribunal they stated it appeared that the claimant was complaining about a decision not to make her redundant.  The claimant then resigned at the end of August 2024 and claimed constructive unfair dismissal.

The Tribunal was critical of both parties and the quality of the evidence that was put forward.  The respondent only called one witness and it did not seek to arrange the remote attendance of many of the key officers at the time of the events.  Equally, the claimant chose not to call any former colleagues such as the colleague who attended the consultation meeting. The Tribunal characterised the claimant’s evidence as vague and unparticularised.
The Tribunal reiterated that it was for the claimant to prove that there had been a fundamental breach of contract for a constructive dismissal case to be grounded.  In all of the circumstances, the claimant had not established or even raised any prima facie evidence of any such breach of contract.  The only breach that could be shown related to two weeks’ sick pay outstanding and in any event it was over two months after that she had resigned.  As a result, it was found that there was no constructive dismissal.

The takeover of the company with the clear aim of restructuring to reduce costs had clearly led to stress and anxiety for many of the employees in this case.  The Tribunal made it very clear that the clear aim and purpose of the takeover was to reduce costs, restructure and then resale when the company was profitable.  This had to be taken into account in terms of the interactions between the management and the employees.  In this case, part of the issue seemed to be a willingness to go for voluntary redundancy but for that not to be an option.  When the resignation then took place there was no tangible evidence demonstrating a fundamental breach of contract.

You can read the case in full here.