Ms L Lees v Respondent — 2026

Ms Lees claimed that she had been unfairly constructively dismissed after resigning by letter dated 11 April 2025. The tribunal held that the effective date of termination was 9 May 2025, when the one-month notice specified in her letter expired. The respondent's subsequent reference to 16 May did not vary that date because Ms Lees had not agreed to a variation. Early conciliation did not begin until 13 August 2025, after the applicable time limit had expired, and no argument concerning reasonable practicability was advanced. The tribunal therefore held that it lacked jurisdiction because the claim had been presented late.

For completeness, the tribunal considered the merits. It found that the meeting on 9 January 2025 concerned pre-termination negotiations protected by section 111A of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The short notice of the meeting, absence of a representative and discussion of the claimant leaving did not amount to improper behaviour. The tribunal also found that Ms Lees had not been pressured to settle, and treated the temporary removal of her systems access as part of the protected negotiations.

The remaining alleged breaches concerned the removal of fixed home-working days, the move to part-time hours and the handling of Ms Lees's subject access request. The tribunal found reasonable and proper cause for ending the informal fixed-days arrangement: management had not known of it, it was inconsistent with the respondent's policy and practice in other offices, and its lack of flexibility had affected business needs. It found that Ms Lees was not pressured into part-time work; she stated that she was happy to accept the proposal, signed the new terms and worked under them. Her concerns had been considered through the flexible-working process and subsequent discussions.

The tribunal found that the respondent kept Ms Lees informed about the subject access request, validly extended the response period because of its scope and complied on 2 May 2025, before the 3 May deadline. The absence of a response by 3 April, which Ms Lees identified in evidence as the last straw, was therefore not a contractual breach. Having found reasonable and proper cause for the relevant conduct and no fundamental breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, the tribunal alternatively dismissed the constructive dismissal claim on its merits. No remedy was awarded.