Mrs W Haydon v Royal Devon University Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust: 6012394/2024
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 6012394/2024
Between
Mrs W HaydonClaimantRoyal Devon University Healthcare NHS Foundation TrustRespondent
Before
Employment Judge BradfordIn person for claimantMr Wyeth (instructed by Counsel) for respondentDate 18 June 2025
JUDGMENT
[1]The Claimant’s complaint of constructive dismissal is not well-founded and is dismissed. There having been no repudiatory breach of contract by the Respondent, the Claimant’s resignation did not amount to constructive dismissal. JUDGMENT having been delivered orally and written reasons having been requested in accordance with Rule 60(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024, the following reasons are provided:
REASONS
[1]By ET1 filed on 21 September 2024 the Claimant, Mrs Haydon, brought a claim of constructive unfair dismissal. She had been employed by the Respondent as a Senior Administrator for the Community Nursing Team. The Claimant had worked for the Respondent as an administrator since 2005. In 2019 she had taken ‘retire and return’, entering into a contract of employment in August of that year, according to which she was to work 15 hours/week. The issue leading to this claim was the Respondent’s request that the Claimant work from a different location, and is dealt with further in the ‘Facts’ section below.[2]At the hearing, oral evidence was given by the Claimant, and for the Respondent the following witnesses were called: - Claire Bakare, Clinical Matron; - James Rutherford, Deputy Community Service Manager; - Freya Woodward, Community Services Manager;[3]In addition the Claimant provided written statements, which I took into account but to which I gave limited weight, from: - Devin Killen, the Claimant’s former job share partner; - Michael Turton, a supervisee of the Claimant; - Sally-Anne Found, Administrator who had worked alongside the Claimant previously, and who for a period of 5 months on secondment, had been the Claimant’s line manager.
Issues to be determined
[4]A list of issues was drafted by the Respondent and had been sent to the Claimant. It was agreed at the outset of the hearing that these were the issues for the Tribunal to determine: Constructive Dismissal
Issues to be determined
[1]Did the respondent without reasonable and proper cause, conduct itself in a manner calculated or likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of confidence and trust between the claimant and respondent so as to be in breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence forming part of the claimant’s contract of employment because of the following alleged conduct:1.1 Pressuring the claimant to move her base;1.2 Changing things in the claimant’s job without any consultation?[2]If so:2.1 Did the claimant resign because of the respondent’s breach of contract?2.2 Did the claimant acquiesce to any breach or affirm the contract following any breach by the respondent?[3]If the claimant’s resignation was sufficient to amount to constructive dismissal, was dismissal nonetheless fair because of some other substantial reason, namely business reorganisation?[4]If the claimant was unfairly constructively dismissed:4.1 Was any loss suffered by the claimant caused by the dismissal?4.2 Should any compensation awarded be reduced on the ground that the claimant:4.2.1 has failed to properly mitigate any purported loss? and/or4.2.2 would have been dismissed or ended her employment in any event? and/or4.2.3 has failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures?4.2.4 contributed to her dismissal through her own conduct?
Facts
[5]In 2019 the Claimant took ‘retire and return’. She entered into a new contract of employment with the Respondent on 1 August 2019. The Claimant had reduced her hours to 15/week. As to Normal Place of Employment, the contract stated: “Your normal place of work is based at the Royal Devon and Exeter NHS FT sites or such other place as your employer may reasonably require…”[6]The Claimant worked a job share. Her Personal Development Plan (PDP) dated 4 June 2021 refers to her having worked a job share for the previous two years. It referenced her training her job share partner who had, by then, gone on maternity leave. The Claimant was a Band 4 Senior Administrator. The PDP stated that the Claimant shared supervision of the two Band 3 and one Band 2 administration assistants with the ‘other Band 4’. However, due to that person’s maternity leave the Claimant was taking on all supervision. It was acknowledged that she had a large workload. In oral evidence, the Claimant referred to weekly handovers between herself and Devin Killen. It was not disputed by the Respondent that these took place (however it was denied that they evidenced a job share).[7]By July 2022 the Claimant’s job share partner, Devin Killen had returned from maternity leave. There had been talk of a move of their regular place of work from Franklyn House to Cranmere Court. An email was sent, from the Claimant and Devin Killen to one of the Nurse Managers, who they provided administrative services for: “Following a recent meeting with Sharon McAtackney and Sally-Anne Found, we were informed that it had been muted that Devin and Myself should be included in the move to Cranmere Court. It was mentioned that the Nurse Team Managers were in favour of this. We were just wondering if there was a specific reason for this as we are not sure it is the right thing to do and would value your opinions. Please see below some of the reasons we feel the move would not be appropriate:• Franklyn provides a safe and secure private office• Confidentiality is a large part of our role, having an office to ourselves provides that security whether it be with staff in person or on the telephone• Personnel files – confidentiality of printing and extracting information/filing paperwork• There is talk that Franklyn car park is going to be expanded. We are not keen on leaving our cars on the road as it’s a very busy road, have concerns that leaving the car parked on the main road may result in it being damaged, or becoming blocked in. Parking at Cranmere is limited, worry of getting somewhere close to park.• Franklyn is neutral ground as we cover Central and East as well as South and West. Central and East may think we are only working for South and West.• The work we do is often quite different to what the Band 3 admin team do, being based at Cranmere could mean that we start to cross cover each other, we would need boundaries to ensure we are doing the work within our current banding. Currently we are doing a lot of work for the NTM’s which sometimes is confidential and needs to be carried out in a “confidential space”. We are more like “PA’s for the Nurse team managers and not as patient facing as the band 3’s are.• There is the desk opposite in the Franklyn office should a Nurse Team Manager or any Staff need to use.• ENAT and Petty Cash Safe is kept in the Franklyn office. This needs to be in a locked room.• We use the Attic for the storage of Archiving and Staff Uniforms, not sure where this would go.• We think the Franklyn office would be lost if it was not used full time.• On a personal note, I don’t have any expenses at the moment, it would add up to an hour to my day and cost me money – Wendy”[8]The response was that the nurse managers were not the decision-makers and were subject to the same process. It stated that all concerns would be listened to as part of the consultation process. There was however limited office space which had to be used to the benefit of the majority of staff. The pair were advised to raise their concerns with their managers, Sharon McAtackney and SallyAnne Found in their 1-1 sessions.[9]Seemingly the matter was raised with the managers and a meeting was held with the Claimant on 1 August 2022 to hear her concerns about the proposed move. The Claimant listed a number of concerns, which were responded to as follows: - Confidential conversations – there was a private office at Franklyn Response: 1-1 rooms were available at Cranmere - Printing confidentiality Response: passwords were required to print off documents - Concerns over travel and parking Response: appreciated, although C had been lucky that she’d not had to move previously and most teams had - Preference to remain in Franklyn Response: Nurse Team Managers would like the pair to join their teams as the team managers did not have time to go to Franklyn - Would look as though they were only working for S&W rather than across both teams Response: one of the reasons for both being asked to spend a day at Poltimore was to prove more support for C&E - Keeping Franklyn Response: would like to, but how it would be used was unclear - Wendy only works 2 days so 1 day at Poltimore was too much Response: She would be covering each team for one day with one day at Poltimore so this was fair. In addition she could provide support to her Band 3 staff member who needed more support[10]The outcome of this meeting was that the Claimant agreed she would trial doing one morning per week at Poltimore.[11]Thereafter Sally-Anne Found who had been the Claimant’s manager on secondment reverted back to her Band 4 role and was replaced by Patrycja Stefaniuk. Patrycja Stefaniuk emailed the Claimant on 7 October 2022, suggesting catch up meetings when the Claimant was at Poltimore on a Friday morning. The Claimant replied ‘thank you’.[12]On 9 December 2022 Sharon McAtackney emailed the Claimant referencing the agreement that she would work Friday mornings in Poltimore and asking her to do this. The Claimant replied that she had done some half days and had understood that it was to be on a trial basis. She said that her Band 3 supervisee had settled into his new role and she was available for support when required. Franklyn was her base and she did not want to move. She felt she was being put under pressure. Any change should be done through appropriate channels with full consultation. Sharon McAtackney replied to say that she understood that she thought there had been agreement that the Claimant would work from Poltimore for half a day/week. A meeting would be arranged with Patrycja Stefaniuk, her line manager, to discuss the matter further.[13]Subsequent emails between managers and HR referred to the Band 3 supervisee requiring more support and the difficulties which resulted from the Claimant basing herself separately from the rest of the administration team. The HR response was that it was not unreasonable to ask the Claimant to move to where her team was based. The change should be discussed and if this was agreed it could be implemented. However, if the Claimant refused to move, the matter would need to be progressed via the Organisational Change process with the involvement of HR.[14]In March 2023 the scope of Band 3 and Band 4 roles were under review. The Claimant’s job share partner had moved to another role within the Trust and there had not been the funding to replace her.[15]A meeting was held between Patrycja Stefaniuk and the Claimant on 15 June 2023. The Claimant was informed that the service was hoping to recruit another Band 4 administrator. The current service need was for the Claimant to work one day/week in Poltimore. Reasons given were: - Support and oversight of Band 3 supervisee; He required a lot of support - Wendy’s role as his supervisor and senior administrator would be more effective when working from Poltimore - To provide cover and support for the Team Nurse managers when Band 3 supervisee was off - The more Wendy was in the office in Poltimore, the more could support her Band 3 supervisee - The team Nurse Managers would be keener to give Wendy work[16]It was further set out that in accordance with her contract, the Claimant’s base was Royal Devon and Exeter sites. It was reasonable to ask her to work from another site.[17]The Claimant considered that being told to go to another base for one of her days was unfair. She became upset and ended the meeting. The Claimant then saw her GP and was signed off sick.[18]The Claimant also contacted the support desk to seek advice; she had made clear that she was happy to go to Poltimore for meetings but would not want to work there as she lived close to Franklyn. She was advised that if managers proposed a change in location they would need to consult with her and base decisions on clear reasons. If an informal consultation did not achieve resolution then a formal consultation would be required.[19]Later in June 2023 James Rutherford emailed the administration managers to say that when Devin Killen left, there was only funding for a replacement for one day/week. There could not therefore be a like for like replacement. Through juggling the budget, there was, by that date, funding for two days/week, which could be spread across three days. This role was then advertised and the Claimant saw the advert whilst on sick leave. She raised that she had not been consulted on the advertised job, which was not stated to be a job share, and she was concerned that key aspects of the role had changed. She said she should have been consulted as this was her job.[20]The Claimant remained on sick leave and was seen by Occupational Health (OH) on 8 August 2023, who noted that she was off due to perceived work related stressors, especially in relation to a possible change in her place of work. Her symptoms would remain until this was addressed.[21]As the Claimant refused contact while on sick leave from her line manger Patrycja Stefaniuk and the next grade manager, Sharon McAtackney, James Rutherford was appointed to be her welfare support. He contacted her in September 2023 to invite her to a wellbeing review, which took place on 27 September 2023. The Claimant reported that her stressors were that she felt her managers wanted her to leave and she was not involved in the recruitment of the person to replace her job share partner. In relation to the first, she said her managers thought she did not want to move, but her position was that she did not need to move. James Rutherford provided an explanation regarding the recruitment of another Band 4 senior administrator, saying that the job description needed to be more generic to give more flexibility. The Claimant was concerned that she had not previously been informed of that.[22]The meeting was followed up by a letter from James Rutherford on 6 October 2023, which confirmed that in the meeting they had discussed that the Claimant felt there had been a breakdown in trust with her managers, and that was having an impact on communication whilst she was away from work.[23]A further letter was sent by James Rutherford on 2 November 2023 dealing with the outstanding points that the Claimant had raised. That set out that her Band 4 colleague could not be replaced on like terms as the funding was no longer available. However, the fundamental aspects of the role had not changed. He was not aware that the Claimant had been in a formal job share. The letter also gave a detailed explanation of the need to change working arrangements going forward: “As a management team however, we also recognise that your administrative colleagues and the nursing teams themselves are predominantly based across the city – alongside our other community health and social care teams. Our business / administrative support function is limited and we know we can cover each other, support each other and be able to respond to a wider range of queries more effectively when we are physically co-located. As I mentioned, Freya and I are currently working with senior leaders as there is still a need to bring Exeter S&W health and social care teams together which is not currently possible within the current set-up at Osprey. Both DCC and RDUH support and promote the benefits ‘integrated’ services can provide. I understand from Sharon and Patrycja that being able to support the colleague you line manage, and to be able to cover work in their absence was one of the original reasons you were asked to work from Poltimore on a more regular basis. I know from what you have said to me, that you did not agree this was necessary but I do consider this to be a reasonable request and I support the decision of asking you to be on site with the colleague you manage, who I know is keen to develop and progress in his NHS career. I believe Sharon and Patrycja felt an informal, gradual and part-time approach was the best way to work with you on this towards this aim. We may on occasion attempt to work informally with staff members to mutually agree changes to working practice, but I agree that a more formal management of change process would have been helpful at an earlier opportunity. HR colleagues did previously indicate that as you have no specific contractual base named on your contract (just the Trust’s name) it would not be unreasonable to initiate conversations informally”.[24]The Claimant raised various points on the letter. James Rutherford did not respond, considering that explanations had been given orally at the meeting, and it was simply a case that the Claimant did not accept those.[25]In December 2023 a referral for mediation was made.[26]On 17 January 2024 the Claimant raised a grievance as she was concerned about the length of time the process was taking. She felt she was being pushed out of her job and asked why the matter was still not resolved. Claire Bakere was appointed to investigate the grievance, and when the Claimant met with her on 7 March 2024, the Claimant stated that the issue was that there had been no consultation before changing her base and the job share role description had been changed without her being told.[27]Within the bundle, probably produced as part of Claire Bakere’s investigation, was a file note setting out the operational need to move the administration teams. Reasons included that the teams were based on the opposite side of the city to Franklyn and it was not operationally suitable for the nursing teams to visit Franklyn for equipment or uniforms. Having personnel files in Franklyn also caused difficulties. The Claimant did not get to see the nursing teams (there were a number of new nursing staff) and her Band 3 supervisee needed more support.[28]In March 2024 Freya Woodward took over as C’s welfare contact and took steps to arrange a formal consultation about a move in the Claimant’s base, as there had, in the intervening period, been changes in the Trust’s estate. Freya Woodward met with the Claimant in April 2024 and explained, as James Rutherford had done, the matters that led to a different Job Description being advertised for the Band 4 administrator to replace Devin Killen. Freya Woodward emphasised that there was no expectation for the Claimant to cover Devin’s role as Sharon had delegated tasks across the team. Freya Woodward suggested a phased return with the Claimant returning initially to Franklyn. Pending approval for the formal consultation, Freya Woodward continued to meet monthly with the Claimant.[29]The formal consultation paper set out the Respondent’s position regarding the operational need for the Claimant to change her base, such as Claimant’s line management responsibilities for colleagues based at Osprey and Poltimore; that community teams were no longer based near Franklyn; and that personnel files had been relocated from Franklyn to Poltimore and Osprey to make them more easily available to the teams. Uniforms previously stored at Franklyn had also been relocated as storage had to be reduced at the request of Devon Partnership Trust who owned the site. The service required administration staff to be based where they could add most value and support colleagues. It was therefore proposed to relocate the Claimant’s base from Franklyn to Osprey house.[30]On 4 June 2024 Claire Bakere wrote to the Claimant with the outcome of her grievance. That set out that Patrycja Stefaniuk and Sharon McAtackney had been advised to proceed with an informal approach regarding the Claimant’s work location in line with the Management of Organisational Change Process. The reason for the request, as explained to the Claimant previously, was set out. As to the job share, when Devin left it was not possible for management to replace her as the funding did not exist in the budget. Management sought advice and when the opportunity arose to advertise the new Band 4 role, a generic job description was used to ensure flexibility for cross cover to be provided. This did not have any impact on the Claimant’s job description which had remained unchanged.[31]It was acknowledged that the Claimant’s preference would be to return to Franklyn whilst the formal consultation process was undertaken. This could be accommodated for the first 2 weeks of a phased return.[32]Thereafter the Claimant resigned. Her resignation letter of 4 July 2024 cited a range of reasons, including pressure from a range of factors such as her job share being on maternity, staff leaving, travelling to different premises for no apparent reason and that no one had been able to explain why it was necessary for her to move from Franklyn House.[33]When asked in evidence about the main reason for her resignation, the Claimant said she felt things were happening behind the scenes, she was not being listened to and she just wanted to be treated fairly. She had worked from Franklyn for nearly 20 years. She considered that if a formal consultation had been undertaken she would not have been required to move her base.
Law
[34]A claim for constructive dismissal is a contractual claim, and follows the employee terminating their contract of employment in circumstances where they are entitled to do so without notice by reason of the employer’s conduct (s95(1)(c) ERA).[35]Guidance is given in caselaw, the leading authority being Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA (in compulsory liquidation) 1997 ICR 606, HL, where their Lordships concluded that there was an implied contractual term that an employer “will not, without reasonable and proper cause, conduct his business in a manner likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of trust and confidence between employer and employee”.[36]In accordance with Abbey National plc v Fairbrother 2007 IRLR 320 EAT, conduct calculated to destroy or seriously damage the trust and confidence between employer and employee does not automatically amount to a breach of the implied term: it will only do so if the employer had no reasonable and proper cause for the conduct.[37]However, the range of reasonable responses test is not relevant to the question of whether an employer has committed a repudiatory breach of contract - Bournemouth University Higher Education Corporation v Buckland 2010 ICR 908, CA.[38]In terms of mobility, whether an employee can claim constructive dismissal when his or her workplace is changed depends largely upon how much mobility the employer has built into the contract.[39]With regard to mutual trust and confidence, in Woods v WM Car Services (Peterborough) Ltd 1981 ICR 666, EAT, a breach of that term was described in the following way: “The tribunal’s function is to look at the employer’s conduct as a whole and determine whether it is such that its effect, judged reasonably and sensibly, is such that the employee cannot be expected to put up with it”. Submissions[40]Mr Wyeth, on behalf of the Respondent, submitted that the starting point was the Claimant’s contract which expressly stated that her base was any Royal Devon and Exeter site. Asking her to work at another site was not, therefore, a breach of either an express or implied contractual term. In addition, he submitted, the Respondent had very good reasons asking her to move, as had been recited in the evidence. There was a clear operational need, and the Claimant simply did not want to go. The Claimant had not abided by the informal agreement that she would work there half a day a week initially. he did not ask for a formal consultation when she was told on 15 June 2023 that she must work a day a week from Poltimore, but went off sick and did not return, meaning that a formal consultation could not be undertaken.[41]With regard to her job, there was no evidence of any attempt by the Respondent to change her Job Description.[42]The Claimant submitted that the main reason for this dispute was the behaviour of the two managers who supervised the Claimant, namely Sharon McAtackney and Patrycja Stefaniuk. These were the key individuals against whom the bulk of her complaints were raised. The Claimant felt lied to by these people and bullied. This was the reason she was signed off with work related stress. Without these individuals there would be no tribunal claim and the Claimant would probably be at work doing her job in the NHS as usual.[43]The Claimant further submitted that that the Respondent failed to provide justification as to why the change in base was necessary for the proper performance of her duties. She submitted that she put forward reasonable objections and raised reasonable issues as to why the changes were not necessary and would in fact hinder her ability to conduct her role effectively.[44]As to her role, the Claimant submitted that when the role of her job share partner was advertised, it had a different job description to her role. She submitted that this, in effect, changed the Claimant’s role and no consultation had taken place on those changes. Application of the law to the facts[45]The law here is well established. It is not a matter of perceived fairness, but whether there has been a repudiatory breach of contract, and whether the Claimant resigned in response to any such breach. Change in location of office base[46]In respect of the move of base, there was a mobility clause within the Claimant’s contract; her place of work was not Franklyn but any Royal Devon and Exeter Trust site. I find that there was no breach of this express term of the contract by asking, or indeed requiring, the Claimant to move.[47]I have gone on to consider whether the manner in which this was done was calculated or likely to destroy the relationship of trust and confidence, an implied term of the contract. It is relevant that the proposed alternative site was approximately 3.5 miles from the Claimant’s original office at Franklyn House. The Claimant made her objections to a move clear in July 2022 (email quoted above) and as such, a meeting with Sharon McAtackney was held on 1 August 2022 to discuss these. This approach was in line with the guidance the Claimant had been given by the nurse manager. Sharon McAtackney responded to each concern raised by the Claimant as set out in the ‘facts’ section above. Sharon’s response emphasised the Claimant’s role in supporting those she managed, and the benefits to the team as a whole. The Claimant at that point agreed to work half a day a week from Poltimore.[48]However, the Claimant did not keep her side of the agreement, and by December 2022 was again working solely from her base in Franklyn save for occasional trips. She told Sharon McAtackney that she did not want to move and that any change should be done with HR involvement and full consultation. Consultation of course can be formal or informal. The Respondent cannot be criticised for trying to resolve the matter informally as this is generally both quicker and, if agreement can be reached, rather than a change imposed, relationships are less likely to be damaged.[49]The Claimant in her evidence disputed that she did not want to move, and said her objection had been to the lack of a formal process. She further considered that had a formal process been followed, the outcome would have been that she could remain at Franklyn. I do not find this to be a sustainable position. This is because there are numerous references in the documents, such as her own emails, to her not wanting to move. Also a formal process would likely have resulted in a requirement for the Claimant to move in view of the relative strength of the Respondent’s business case, and the absence of the Claimant having provided any sustainable, cogent reasons against moving. Notwithstanding the Claimant’s submission that the respondent provided no justification of her move, I find that the Respondent provided clear reasons, based on business need, for the Claimant to work from another base. The Claimant has made a broad assertion that no justification was provided, but this simply does not reflect the evidence. From the outset, all the Claimant’s reasons for resisting the move were responded to, and those responses have remained consistent in the Respondent’s position. They were explained to the Claimant in meetings in June 2023 and in the letter from James Rutherford of 2 November 2023 (quoted above).The reasons are also set out fully in the draft formal consultation document, which the Claimant had sight of prior to her resignation.[50]In terms of process, the evidence was that HR was involved from an early stage and advised an informal approach. There had, I find, been informal consultation, namely the meeting with Sharon McAtackney on 1 August 2022 and the meeting with Patrycja Stefaniuk on 15 June 2023. In the interim I find that the Respondent anticipated the matter being resolved by agreement. The Respondent sought to gain the Claimant’s agreement in a step by step process, initially asking her to work for just half a day per week from the base where other members of the team were located. At that time, she was not being asked to change her base, but that, as set out in the evidence of Freya Woodard, became a requirement as changes in the Respondent’s estate took place, and working arrangements for all staff developed accordingly.[51]Agreement to the Respondent’s proposal that the Claimant regularly worked some of her hours from an alternative office was not reached in the meeting of 15 June 2023. The Claimant objected to being ‘told’ to work 1 day/week from Poltimore. She felt this was unfair pressure. She did not see it as a reasonable management instruction. I find it was a reasonable requirement, in view of the Respondent’s stated reasons, set out above. However, the Claimant did not request a formal consultation, informal consultation having been exhausted and failed to reach an agreed outcome. Rather, the Claimant went on sick leave. She then contacted the support team seeking advice, saying she had always made clear that she did not want to work from Poltimore. The Claimant’s refusal to work from Poltimore was, I find, a matter of personal choice, due to the relative locations of the offices. The business reasons that the Claimant gave initially, in July 2022, for resisting the move, either no longer applied (uniforms and personnel files having been moved, for example) or were more properly simply reasons going to personal preference (for example, parking). Her concerns about confidentiality had been appropriately addressed.[52]I find, in line with the Respondent’s submission, that a formal consultation process could not have been undertaken whilst the Claimant was on sick leave. The Respondent would likely have faced criticism had it progressed the matter in circumstances in which the Claimant was unfit for work. She says this is what she wanted but there is no evidence, until almost a year later, that she requested this process be undertaken while she remained off sick.[53]I find on the evidence that the Respondent had reasonable and proper cause for requiring the Claimant to work from a different location. A consultation document was drafted in May 2024 and set out a clear business case for the Claimant to move her base to Osprey House. Rather than participate in the consultation, the Claimant resigned.[54]In her resignation email, the Claimant did not cite what could be interpreted as a breakdown of trust and confidence as the reason for her resignation. She cited various reasons, including her job share partner leaving, being asked to travel to different locations and then being told she was not needed there, a lack of explanation for the request that she move from Franklyn House, and gave her view that it had been made clear that she would not be going back to Franklyn or the same role. I deal with the Claimant’s role separately below. As to the proposed move from Franklyn, the evidence was that during the grievance process the Claimant had expressed that she would consider returning to work if she could be based at Franklyn House. Such an offer, albeit time limited, was made as part of the grievance outcome.[55]It is relevant that no formal decision as to the Claimant’s work base had been taken by the date she resigned. The absence of such a decision, combined with the variety of reasons given in her resignation letter are, I find, inconsistent with resignation in response to a repudiatory breach of contract, namely a requirement that she move base. A consultation document had been drafted, but the formal consultation had not commenced.[56]I do not find that there was a failure to follow proper process, let alone procedural failures that could objectively be considered so serious as to amount to a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. The Respondent was unable to progress to a formal consultation in the absence of the Claimant’s return to work, until she expressly requested this. Then OH advice was taken as to her fitness to participate in the process. Nor do I find that the Respondent’s request, prior to this, that the Claimant work from an alternative location for some of the time, was an improper process or breached any implied term, in view of the express contractual term as to her place of work. HR advice from the outset was to seek to reach an informal agreement, and if that were not possible, to embark on a formal process. Job Description[57]Moving to the asserted change in the Claimant’s role, there was no evidence that the Claimant’s role was changed. The Claimant’s argument here was based on an anticipation that she was to be consulted about a replacement for Devin Killen. I find that the Respondent’s communication from the time that Devin moved to an alternative position could and should have been better. I have found as a fact that they did job share, in view of the PDR and evidence as to weekly handovers. The Respondent should, out of courtesy as the Claimant asserted, have informed her that Devin’s role was not going to be replaced either immediately, or with an equivalent job share. However, this shortcoming did not amount to a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, particularly as the Claimant was provided with explanations first by James Rutherford and then by Freya Woodward. Had she agreed to contact from her line manager or Sharon McAtackney after she went off sick leave, the Claimant would likely have received an explanation sooner.[58]I can understand why the Claimant perceived that things were happening behind her back, when she saw the job advert for the revised Band 4 administrator role, and this had not been mentioned/explained to her. Equally, had she remained at work, or even accepted contact from her managers whilst on sick leave, this may well have been discussed.[59]The Claimant provided no evidence as to how she says her job changed. The balance of the evidence was that there was no change to the Claimant’s Job Description or role. I find that the Claimant did not cover a 5 day job in 2 days. Had this been an expectation, I find it would have been unsustainable, and the Claimant would have raised concerns about this at the time. She did not. Rather, I accept the evidence was that Sharon McAtackney redistributed work among the team. Given my finding that there was no change to the Claimant’s role, no consultation was needed. Any such perceived failure, in the absence of a duty, did not objectively amount to a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. Further, the Claimant does not rely on a change to her role or job description in her resignation letter. I do not find that the Claimant resigned in response to a perceived change in her role or job description.[60]This claim therefore falls at the first hurdle; the Claimant was not dismissed. She resigned in circumstances where the Respondent had not breached either an express or implied term of the Claimant’s contract. As such, her resignation cannot be said to be in response to such a breach. There was no constructive dismissal.[61]Given this finding, I do not need to make determinations in relation to the remaining issues.