Claimant v London Borough of Hackney
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that none of the five alleged breaches of contract (breach of confidentiality in 2021, poor management of restructure, breach of confidentiality by Chapman in 2024, fire door safety issue, or breach of grievance procedure) amounted to fundamental breaches of the employment contract. The tribunal concluded the claimant resigned because he had secured alternative employment following the removal of his honorarium, not in response to any repudiatory breach. The claimant had affirmed the contract by continuing in employment and expressing a wish to continue the relationship through mediation.
The claimant accepted during evidence that the respondent was entitled to recover 10.99 hours of holiday pay deducted from his final salary as an overpayment. He withdrew the claim and consented to dismissal on withdrawal.
Facts
The claimant worked as a Support Officer in the respondent local authority's Print Unit from March 2018 to March 2025. He had a difficult relationship with his line manager Colin Chapman, particularly after Chapman discovered in 2021 that the claimant had been receiving an honorarium for work on Planet Press software. In August 2024 the honorarium was terminated. The claimant raised a grievance in December 2024 complaining of breaches of confidentiality, fire safety issues with an office door being left open, and unfair treatment. The grievance was dealt with informally through mediation. After receiving a job offer elsewhere, the claimant resigned on 14 February 2025 claiming constructive dismissal.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims. None of the five alleged breaches (two confidentiality breaches, poor restructure communication, fire door safety, breach of grievance procedure) amounted to fundamental breaches of contract. The tribunal found the claimant resigned because he had secured alternative employment after his honorarium was removed, not in response to any repudiatory breach. The holiday pay claim was withdrawn after the claimant accepted the deduction was a legitimate recovery of overpayment.
Practical note
For a constructive dismissal claim to succeed, the alleged breaches must be fundamental and go to the root of the contract — mere unreasonableness or dissatisfaction with working conditions is insufficient, and tribunals will examine the true reason for resignation objectively.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6020412/2025
- Decision date
- 27 October 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- London Borough of Hackney
- Sector
- local government
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Support Officer
- Service
- 7 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No