Cases3304695/2024

Claimant v The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

28 August 2025Before Employment Judge L BrownReadingremote video

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Constructive Dismissalfailed

The tribunal found no fundamental breach of contract by the respondent. The claimant argued breach of implied trust and confidence and breach of an implied contract for secondment. The judge concluded that the respondent's withdrawal of the secondment was objectively reasonable given understaffing due to maternity and sickness absence, and that Ms Freeth and Ms Sneyd acted rationally and in good faith to facilitate the secondment. The offer of secondment was conditional and never finalized. The conduct relied upon, including tone and exclusion from meetings, did not objectively breach the implied term of trust and confidence.

Facts

The claimant, a long-serving Deputyship Advisor, was offered a cross-service secondment to a Data Migration Analyst role after being identified as suitable by the receiving manager. The offer was conditional on references and processing paperwork. The claimant's line manager, Ms W, supported the secondment but failed to secure approval from senior management (Ms Sneyd and Ms Freeth) beforehand. When senior management became aware, they could not release the claimant due to staffing shortages caused by maternity leave and Ms W's own prolonged sickness absence. Despite genuine efforts by management to find cover and facilitate the secondment over 2½ months, the secondment was ultimately withdrawn on 1 February 2024. The claimant resigned the next day citing intolerable working conditions and mishandling of the secondment process.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed the claim. The judge found no concluded contract for the secondment as the offer remained conditional and was never finalized. The withdrawal of the secondment and the respondent's conduct did not breach the implied term of trust and confidence. Management acted reasonably and in good faith, making genuine attempts to facilitate the secondment but ultimately unable to release the claimant due to operational needs. The claimant was not constructively dismissed.

Practical note

An employer does not breach the implied term of trust and confidence by withdrawing an opportunity for secondment where operational needs genuinely prevent the employee's release, even if the employee's expectations have been raised, provided management acts reasonably and in good faith throughout.

Legal authorities cited

Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International [1998] AC 20Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust [2019] ICR 1Woods v WM Car Services (Peterborough) Ltd [1981] ICR 666Western Excavating v Sharp [1978] ICR 221Omilaju v Waltham Forest London Borough Council [2005] ICR 481

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.95(1)(c)

Case details

Case number
3304695/2024
Decision date
28 August 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
3
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
public sector
Represented
Yes
Rep type
in house

Employment details

Role
Deputyship Advisor
Service
9 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No