Cases2402464/2024

Claimant v AstraZeneca UK Limited

20 June 2025Before Employment Judge Phil AllenManchesterin person

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Constructive Dismissalfailed

The tribunal found that only the failure to follow flexible working procedures in June 2021 was a breach of the duty of trust and confidence, but the claimant had affirmed the contract by accepting a promotion, continuing to work for 18 months, and expressing willingness to work part-time until April 2024 to receive a bonus. The claimant resigned because she had decided to take new employment by July 2023, not because of any fundamental breach. The alleged 'last straw' (steriliser validation project) was found to be innocuous and added nothing to prior breaches.

Direct Discrimination(sex)withdrawn

The claimant had originally included a sex discrimination complaint but it was no longer pursued at the time of the hearing, therefore not determined.

Facts

The claimant worked for AstraZeneca from February 2017 to January 2024 as a technical manager. She made two flexible working requests in 2020 and 2021 which were not properly handled by her manager, who told her she needed to choose between a career or part-time work. She was excluded from a 2022 recruitment process that did not follow policy. She raised concerns about an investigation she conducted in 2023 being overruled, job title changes, and a steriliser validation project. She resigned in December 2023, having already decided to take new employment by July 2023, completing pre-employment checks and medical assessments for that role.

Decision

The tribunal found that the respondent's complete failure to follow flexible working procedures in June 2021 was a breach of the duty of trust and confidence, but the claimant had affirmed the contract by accepting a promotion, continuing to work for 18 months without protest, and expressing willingness to remain employed until April 2024 to receive a bonus. The real reason for resignation was the claimant's decision to take new employment. The claim for constructive unfair dismissal therefore failed.

Practical note

Even where an employer commits a fundamental breach of contract, a constructive dismissal claim will fail if the employee has affirmed the contract through their subsequent conduct (such as accepting promotion and continuing to work without protest) and the true reason for resignation is taking new employment rather than responding to the breach.

Legal authorities cited

Western Excavating v Sharp [1978] ICR 221Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International [1998] AC 20Blackburn v Aldi Stores Ltd 2013 IRLR 846Walker v Josiah Wedgwood and Sons Ltd 1978 ICR 744Nottinghamshire County Council v Meikle [2004] IRLR 703Abbycars (West Horndon) Ltd v Ford UKEAT/0472/07London Borough of Waltham Forest v Omilaju [2005] ICR 481Chindove v William Morrisons Supermarkets Plc UKEAT/0201/13Leaney v Loughborough University [2023] EAT 155Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust [2019] ICR 1RDF Media Group Plc v Clements [2007] EWHC 2892

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.95(1)(c)

Case details

Case number
2402464/2024
Decision date
20 June 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
4
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
healthcare
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Sterile Support Team Technical Manager
Service
7 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No