Cases6003974/2024

Claimant v SS&C Financial Services International Limited

20 February 2025Before Employment Judge S PoveyLondon Eastremote video

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Constructive Dismissalfailed

The tribunal found that the restructure announced on 2 April 2024 was limited to the Citrix support function and did not involve any breaches of the Claimant's contract of employment. The Claimant had not been demoted, his role and responsibilities remained substantially unchanged, and what he characterised as demotion and loss of autonomy were misunderstandings of what was actually being proposed. There was no fundamental breach of contract (express or implied terms including trust and confidence) that entitled him to resign and treat himself as constructively dismissed.

Wrongful Dismissalfailed

As the Claimant was not dismissed (constructively or otherwise), he had no contractual or statutory right to notice. The Claimant resigned of his own volition without being entitled to treat the contract as repudiated, and therefore was not entitled to payment in lieu of notice.

Facts

The Claimant was employed as Lead Application Packaging Specialist from July 2017 until he resigned on 28 April 2024. In April 2024, the Respondent announced a restructure of its Citrix support function, introducing regional support managers and a new organisational chart. The Claimant believed this restructure demoted him, removed his senior manager status, and stripped him of his role and responsibilities over the application packaging team. He raised concerns, proposed alternative structures, and ultimately resigned claiming constructive dismissal.

Decision

The tribunal found that the April 2024 restructure was limited to the Citrix support function only and did not affect the Claimant's role as Lead Application Packaging Specialist. The Claimant was not demoted, his pay and job title remained unchanged, and the Respondent intended to involve him in leading future restructuring of the packaging function. The tribunal concluded there was no breach of contract (express or implied) and therefore no constructive dismissal. Both claims were dismissed.

Practical note

Employees who misunderstand the scope of an organisational restructure and resign believing their role has been fundamentally altered will not succeed in constructive dismissal claims where objective evidence shows their substantive role, responsibilities, pay and status remained unchanged.

Legal authorities cited

Western Excavating v Sharp [1978] ICR 221Elsevier Ltd v Munro [2014] EWHC 2648 (QB)Morrow v Safeway Stores [2002] IRLR 9

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.86ERA 1996 s.95(1)(c)

Case details

Case number
6003974/2024
Decision date
20 February 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
3
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
financial services
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Lead Application Packaging Specialist
Service
7 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No