Two constructive dismissal cases have been decided since our last newsletter which make for interesting reading. The first case serves as a reminder of how not to approach making changes to terms and conditions of employment and in the second case the Court of Appeal has provided some helpful guidance on how tribunals and courts should determine "last straw" cases.

The first case is Mostyn v. S and P Casuals. Mr Mostyn was a sales executive and between 2012 and 2016 his sales figures fell significantly. His employer addressed this drop in performance by inviting him to a meeting in February 2016 and asking him to accept a £20,000 cut in his basic pay. Perhaps unsurprisingly Mr Mostyn resigned with immediate effect and brought a claim for constructive unfair dismissal, based principally on breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence.

While his claim was initially dismissed by the Employment Tribunal (which found that Mr Mostyn's resignation was in response to the breach of the implied duty of trust and confidence but that the respondent had reasonable and proper cause for imposing the pay cut) the Employment Appeal Tribunal found that there had been a fundamental breach by the respondent of the express term relating to salary payment and that should have been determined before considering whether there had been a breach of the implied term.

Making changes to terms and conditions of employment can be a contentious and emotive issue. It goes without saying that employers do not have the ability to unilaterally make changes to key terms and conditions of employment – salary being the most obvious example. Full and proper consideration should always be given to the reasons for making changes which have a negative impact and properly documented in terms of a proposal before any discussion with employees. Careful thought should be given to the correct process to be followed. For minor and inconsequential changes, notification of the change, an explanation for the change and a sufficient period of notice should be given. In a case such as this where a substantial salary reduction is proposed an employer should consider whether it is a redundancy situation and proceed on that basis with the offer of an alternative position on a lower salary (which is unlikely to be a suitable alternative position but can be discussed as an option with the affected employee). For other such substantial proposed changes the employer should engage in a full and meaningful consultation process to discuss a proposed change prior to taking any steps to implement or "force" the change through. Finally, bear in mind that if more than 20 employees are affected by the proposed change and you ultimately need to go down the dismissal and re-engagement route to implement the change, then you may need to engage the collective statutory consultation process (which is exactly the same process as for collective redundancies). We would recommend seeking advice in these circumstances.

The second constructive dismissal decision is the case of Kaur v. Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust. In this case the employee resigned in response to a "last straw" incident when her appeal against a final written warning was rejected. While the employee was ultimately unsuccessful in her claim and appeal, the Court of Appeal found that an employee could still bring a claim for constructive dismissal relying on a series of acts by the employer even where the employee has affirmed as earlier fundamental breach of contract. The Court also provided some useful guidance on the correct approach to these cases:

  • What was the most recent act (or omission) on the part of the employer which the employee says caused, or triggered, his or her resignation?
  • Has he or she affirmed the contract since that act?
  • If not, was that act (or omission) by itself a repudiatory breach of contract?
  • If not, was it part of a course of conduct comprising several acts and omissions which, viewed cumulatively, amounted to a fundamental breach of the implied duty of mutual trust and confidence?
  • Did the employee resign in response (or partly in response) to that breach?

In short, even if an employee accepts an employer's fundamental breach of contract but the employer subsequently breaches the contract again, the employee can rely on the earlier breach (that was accepted) in a constructive dismissal complaint relying on an employer's course of conduct. Course of conduct constructive dismissals are much more common than constructive dismissals arising out of one fundamental breach by the employer but the case of Moyston, discussed above, is a clear example of the latter.

Dentons is the world's first polycentric global law firm. A top 20 firm on the Acritas 2015 Global Elite Brand Index, the Firm is committed to challenging the status quo in delivering consistent and uncompromising quality and value in new and inventive ways. Driven to provide clients a competitive edge, and connected to the communities where its clients want to do business, Dentons knows that understanding local cultures is crucial to successfully completing a deal, resolving a dispute or solving a business challenge. Now the world's largest law firm, Dentons' global team builds agile, tailored solutions to meet the local, national and global needs of private and public clients of any size in more than 125 locations serving 50-plus countries. www.dentons.com.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.