This dilemma was all about the topic of constructive dismissal and some events that may lead up to a case of constructive dismissal. We thought it might be useful to share the legal definition of constructive dismissal.
Under the terms of s.95(1)(c) of 5 the Employment Rights Act 1996 (“the 1996 Act”) the employee has to show the following to demonstrate constructive dismissal;
“The employee has to show that she terminated his/her contract of employment, in circumstances such that she was entitled to do so without notice by reason of her employer’s conduct. It is well established that means that the employee is required to show that the employer is guilty of conduct which is a fundamental breach going to the root of the contract of employment, or which shows that the employer no longer intends to be bound by one or more of the essential terms of the contract. The employee, in those circumstances, is entitled to leave without notice or to give notice, but the conduct, in either case, must be sufficiently serious to enable him to leave at once.”
For the purposes of this dilemma, a few assumptions were made about the contract of employment. It was assumed it was a standard contract of employment for a pharmacist.
Along the way, we asked you to decide whether the cumulative nature of the events that the pharmacist goes through merit resignation and a favourable claim of constructive dismissal.
So assumptions about the contract of employment aside the central question in this dilemma was at what point was it fair for the pharmacist to say they’ve had enough and therefore resign forthwith?