And speaking of multitudinous anxieties brings me to the salutary case of Walker v Robsons (Rickmansworth) Ltd, in which the Employment Tribunal considered whether an employee had been constructively and unfairly dismissed.

Mr Walker was employed as the branch manager at the Rickmansworth branch of Robsons estate agency from 2017 until his dismissal in 2022.

In February 2022, the company director, Daniel Young, informed Mr Walker that he would be transferring to the less successful Chorleywood branch after hiring Steven Rosenthal to manage the Rickmansworth branch. No formal documentation was provided regarding the change. At this time, Mr Walker’s pay comprised of commission from both Chorleywood office sales and turnover of the Rickmansworth office giving him On-Target Earnings (OTE) of about £69,400.

In May 2023, Mr Walker discovered an envelope on his chair containing a letter titled "Contract Amendment". The letter outlined a new commission structure, which excluded any commission related to the turnover of the Rickmansworth branch. It was agreed that the content would be discussed further the following day. However, Mr Young informed Mr Walker the next day that Mr Rosenthal had resigned from his position and advised him to disregard the letter. The incident added to Mr Walker’s uncertainty about his role.

In the following weeks, discussions took place regarding the replacement of Mr Rosenthal. Mr Young also asked Mr Walker to return to the Rickmansworth branch. While Mr Walker had mixed feelings about this request, as he had worked hard to establish and improve the Chorleywood branch, he recognised the greater earning potential at Rickmansworth. Despite this, he felt somewhat unsettled by the prospect of the move.

Mr Young later decided that Mr Walker would share the Rickmansworth manager role with a colleague, Mr Gooder, but failed to communicate this to Mr Walker. When Mr Walker later discovered that Mr Gooder had taken the “manager’s desk” – a position carrying symbolic seniority – he interpreted it as a demotion. Mr Walker messaged Mr Young saying he would not return to “sit in the middle”, meaning he would not accept a subordinate position.

Mr Young misunderstood this as a sign that Mr Walker intended to resign and join a competitor. On his way to confront Mr Walker, he contacted an external HR advice service, seeking guidance on how to handle the perceived resignation. The adviser emailed suggested steps, including issuing an ultimatum or proceeding with disciplinary action if Mr Walker refused to return. Acting on this advice, Mr Young confronted Mr Walker at the Chorleywood branch, and during a heated exchange, encouraged him to “put it in writing”. Mr Walker drafted a resignation letter under pressure and was then told to leave immediately.

Two days after the meeting, Mr Walker called Mr Young, hoping to retract his resignation, but Mr Young did not return the call. On 9 June 2023, the employer informed Mr Walker by letter that he would receive pay in lieu of notice, with today being his last day of work.

Mr Walker then filed a claim for constructive and unfair dismissal in the Employment Tribunal.

The ET found that Mr Walker was constructively and unfairly dismissed. They found that the employer’s handling of events; including the unexplained transfer, lack of clarity around his commission, and the decision to share his managerial role without consultation, amounted to a fundamental breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence. From Mr Walker’s perspective, these actions signalled a loss of status and respect, culminating in his belief that he was being demoted.

The ET further ruled that Mr Walker’s so-called “resignation” was made in the heat of the moment and could not be treated as a genuine, voluntary resignation. Mr Young’s failure to clarify the misunderstanding about the “desk” and his reliance on external HR advice without considering the personal dynamics of the situation were also criticised. The ET concluded that clearer communication and a more measured response could have prevented the breakdown of the employment relationship.

Mr Walker was awarded approximately £21,000 in compensation.

This case highlights how easily workplace relationships can break down when communication and consultation are neglected. The ET’s decision reinforces that even seemingly minor actions, such as changes to duties, commission structures, or office arrangements can undermine trust if handled without transparency or sensitivity.

For employers, the lesson is clear: always consult employees before altering roles, confirm any changes in writing, and handle emotional resignations with care. Managers should also apply HR advice with judgment, not as a rigid checklist. This case ultimately demonstrates that constructive dismissal risks often arise less from business decisions themselves than from how those decisions are communicated and managed.