Mrs S Anfield v BH Alderwood Limited — 2026

The tribunal dismissed Mrs S Anfield's complaints of constructive unfair dismissal and unlawful deduction from wages against BH Alderwood Limited. She worked at Carnoustie Golf Hotel & Spa from 18 May 2018 until her resignation with immediate effect on 29 December 2025, having become Spa Manager in June 2025. Her constructive dismissal complaint relied on three incidents involving Deputy General Manager Nik Nenov, her working hours, an alleged failure to investigate complaints, and a final period of 10 consecutive working days. Applying the contractual test under section 95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal found that she had not resigned in response to a repudiatory breach of contract.

The tribunal rejected the descriptions of the three incidents as physical intimidation, verbal abuse and an overt threat. It found that Nenov's gesture across his throat on 8 August was an instruction to end a meeting, rather than a threat of violence or harm. His swearing when sending Anfield home on 31 October reflected concern that she was unfit to work. His comment on 10 November that she would know if he wanted rid of her was found to be gruff reassurance. Although his management style was described as not wholly appropriate, it did not meet the threshold for a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. General Manager Colin Richmond had explained the complaint procedures and followed up after the August incident. Anfield confirmed that matters had been resolved and wished to proceed informally. The tribunal found no failure to investigate.

The tribunal also rejected the proposed last straw of 10 consecutive working days ending on 24 December. Anfield controlled the spa rota and elected to cover last-minute staffing shortages, which the tribunal found were beyond the respondent's control. The respondent did not know that she was working continuously, and she did not raise the issue. The working pattern breached neither the Working Time Regulations nor her express contractual terms and did not itself breach trust and confidence. There was no employer act or omission capable of completing the alleged course of conduct under the last-straw principles. The tribunal did not find that she had affirmed the contract, but found that she resigned wholly because of her working hours, wanting to be available to care for her grandchildren. The alleged bullying and failure to investigate played no part in her resignation.

The wages complaint concerned additional hours worked during April to September 2025. The tribunal accepted that Anfield had worked additional hours, relying on attendance records she supplied; the respondent produced no attendance-system printout to support its denial. Her salary was £30,000 a year, payable monthly in arrears. Although her contract normally required 40 hours over five days, it also required such additional hours as were reasonably necessary to fulfil her responsibilities without additional payment. She therefore had no contractual entitlement to payment for the extra hours, and her wages were not less than the amount properly payable. Both complaints were dismissed, and no monetary award was recorded.