Unfair dismissal not well founded.

The Complainant claimed that he had been unfairly dismissed on 30 November 2024 after his hours and work location had changed. He stated that he had started work in August 2023 under a 48-hour night-shift contract, but that his December 2023 roster had been removed and a new employee had been placed on night security. He said he had then been moved to morning shifts, which had disrupted his childcare arrangements. He further stated that, in May 2024, he had been assigned to another centre located an hour from his home, causing additional travel time and fuel costs. He maintained that he had repeatedly sought a fair allocation of 48-hour weekly shifts but had only received 36 hours. He argued that the lack of work in December 2024 amounted to dismissal and said he eventually resigned on 18 January 2025 because he needed alternative employment.

The Respondent denied that it had dismissed the Complainant and submitted that he had resigned voluntarily by letter dated 13 January 2025, effective from 18 January 2025. It stated that the Complainant had transferred to its employment under TUPE, but that no original employment contract had been received. The Respondent said the Complainant had been removed from his site on 21 November 2024 following a resident complaint and concerns about his failure to carry out fire drills despite training. After an investigation, he had been assigned to another site on 30 November 2024 but had refused that assignment. The Respondent also said he had failed to attend a rostered shift on 6 December 2024. It argued that, if the complaint was one of constructive dismissal, the Complainant had not shown intolerable conduct, had not used the grievance procedure, and had refused attempts to resolve matters.

The Adjudicating Officer found that the complaint was not premature, despite having been lodged before the Complainant’s resignation took effect. The substance of the case was considered on the basis of whether the Complainant had been dismissed or, alternatively, constructively dismissed. The Adjudicator noted that the Respondent had removed the Complainant from site following a complaint but had not invoked any disciplinary procedure. The Adjudicator did not accept that the Respondent had been unable to contact him, as postal communication could have been used. However, the Adjudicator also found that the Respondent had not dismissed the Complainant, since he remained rostered for shifts in December 2024 and January 2025. On constructive dismissal, the Adjudicator held that the Complainant had not proved that the Respondent’s conduct had made resignation reasonable. The Respondent had attempted to resolve matters, but the Complainant had refused and moved to another job. The complaint failed.

Employers should:

• Distinguish clearly between removing an employee from a client site and terminating employment. Where a complaint has been made about an employee, the employer should promptly invoke an investigation or disciplinary process, communicate in writing, and confirm whether the employee remains employed, suspended, reassigned or rostered elsewhere.  
  
• Disputes should also be managed carefully, particularly where employees allege contractual entitlement to specific hours, shift patterns or locations. Employers should retain contracts, TUPE records, roster histories, correspondence and evidence of alternative work offered. Where hours or sites change, the business reason should be explained, and any employee concerns about childcare, travel time or cost should be considered and documented. 
  
• Direct to the grievance procedure and attempt early resolution. However, where the employee refuses shifts, fails to attend work or resigns while pursuing other employment, the employer should still document all offers of work and attempts to engage. Clear communication, written records and consistent use of procedures will assist in defending both ordinary unfair dismissal and constructive dismissal claims. 
  

The full case can be found here.