Editor's message: Under unfair dismissal laws, an employee is entitled to resign in response to a fundamental breach of the contract of employment by his or her employer. This means that, although the employer has not dismissed the employee, the termination of the employment contract is treated as a dismissal.
You should be alert to the common breaches of contractual terms, both express and implied, that can lead employees to resign and argue that you have constructively dismissed them. A common example of a fundamental breach of an express term is unilaterally cutting an employee's pay or hours without the contractual power to do so. A breach of the implied term of trust and confidence could occur if you fail to investigate a grievance properly or turn a blind eye to allegations of bullying and harassment.
The best way to minimise the risk of constructive dismissal claims against your organisation is to have procedures that prevent fundamental breaches from occurring in the first place. These include a process for varying employees' terms and conditions; a grievance procedure; and a dignity at work policy. Under these procedures, you should consult properly with employees on significant variations to their terms and conditions; follow a fair and timely procedure when an employee raises a grievance; and fully investigate allegations of bullying and harassment.
Stephen Simpson, principal employment law editor
Updated to reflect that the Court of Appeal heard the appeal in Flowers and others v East of England Ambulance Trust on 15 May 2019.
Updated to reflect the maximum compensatory award for unfair dismissal, effective from 6 April 2019.
In Governing Body of Tywyn Primary School v Aplin, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) upheld a headteacher's constructive dismissal and sexual orientation discrimination claims after his school mishandled disciplinary action over his lawful sexual activities with two 17-year-olds he met through Grindr.
Although a recent Court of Appeal decision concerning suspension in relation to safeguarding concerns provides an element of reassurance for employers, consultant editor Darren Newman explains why suspension should still be used only sparingly.
In London Borough of Lambeth v Agoreyo, the Court of Appeal held that the proper test for the courts for deciding if an employee's suspension breached the implied term of trust and confidence is whether or not the employer's decision to suspend was a "reasonable and proper" response to the allegations.
With the Court of Appeal due to hear the appeal against the High Court decision in Agoreyo that the suspension of a teacher was a repudiatory breach of contract, consultant editor Darren Newman looks at the issue of suspension when it relates to safeguarding concerns.
Updated to include information on East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust v Levy, in which the EAT held that a letter of notice was not a resignation due to ambiguous wording.
In Patel v Folkestone Nursing Home Ltd, the Court of Appeal held that, by failing to deal with the more serious allegation in the appeal letter, the employer had breached the implied duty to maintain trust and confidence in the employment relationship.
In Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, the Court of Appeal held that, in "last straw" cases, an employee may rely on earlier affirmed breaches of contract provided that the later act forms part of the series.
In Agoreyo v London Borough of Lambeth  EWHC 2019 HC, the High Court held that a teacher was constructively dismissed when she resigned in response to a knee-jerk suspension. In the circumstances of the case, the suspension had been a breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence entitling the employee to resign without notice.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to constructive dismissal.