The Claimant resigned claiming constructive dismissal based on a series of events leading up to the resignation, including being required to work consecutive weekends rather than every other weekend. The ET rejected the claim on the basis that there was no breach of the implied term as to trust and confidence by the employer. The Claimant appealed.

The EAT dismissed the appeal. The first ground considered by the EAT related to a requirement that the Claimant work two consecutive weekends instead of her usual alternate weekends. This requirement was allowed by the express terms of her contract. The Claimant appealed on the basis that the ET had failed to consider whether those terms had been altered by implication. No such case had been argued before the ET and this ground of appeal therefore failed. The second ground considered by the EAT was that the reasons given by the ET for finding that the employer’s decision to suspend her pending an investigation was justifiable were inadequate. Although the ET’s decision may have been wrong the reasons given enabled the Claimant to know why she had lost on the point and were adequate. The third ground considered by the EAT related to the employer later requiring the Claimant to return to work at a different location while the investigation continued. Again, this was allowed by the express terms of her contract and no case had been argued that those terms had been altered by implication. Also, the ET had provided adequate reasons for finding that there was reasonable and proper cause for requiring her to return to work at a different location.