Mrs A King v Wirral Borough Council — 2026

Mrs King resigned from Wirral Borough Council on 1 August 2024, effective 1 September 2024, and alleged constructive unfair dismissal. The Tribunal found that the Council had fundamentally breached the implied term of trust and confidence by failing to follow its policies when managing her posts. In particular, it had not consulted her when her substantive Leisure Advisor role was deleted in April 2022 or before treating the Business Systems Support Officer role as her substantive post from May 2023, and it had failed to issue the required agreements and maintain appropriate contact during later secondments. The Tribunal did not find that the Council was required to consult her about filling the Call Centre Supervisor role, because that role had remained a temporary secondment rather than her substantive post.

The Tribunal found that the grievance took longer than the indicative policy timescales, but that the initial failure to receive it was unintentional and that there was reasonable and proper cause for the subsequent time taken to investigate a complex history. It also rejected the allegation that the Council failed to consider Mrs King's welfare and mental health, finding that occupational-health referrals, welfare contact, alternative vacancies, medical redeployment and adjusted duties had been offered. The Council's corporate values were found to be guiding principles, and the Tribunal found no evidential basis for the alleged failure to work within them.

Applying the Western Excavating, Malik and Kaur principles, the Tribunal found that the 31 July 2024 email which precipitated the resignation was an innocuous act and neither a repudiatory breach nor part of a cumulative repudiatory breach. The Council was entitled to refuse sick pay above Mrs King's contractual entitlement. The policy-management breaches all predated the grievance outcome of 24 January 2024; Mrs King then returned to work, participated in redeployment and continued working for more than six months. The Tribunal concluded that she had affirmed the contract and resigned because she was dissatisfied with the refusal of additional sick pay, rather than in response to the fundamental breach. She was therefore not dismissed, and the constructive unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed.

Mrs King was contractually entitled to six months' sick pay at full pay followed by six months at half pay, and she accepted that this entitlement had been paid in full. The possibility of an extension in exceptional cases was discretionary and did not make additional full pay properly payable. The unauthorised-deduction complaint was accordingly dismissed. Her separate accrued holiday-pay complaint had already been dismissed following withdrawal, and no monetary award was made.