Constructive dismissal allegations are a growing concern within the scope of Employment Litigation for Employers, particularly in the UAE where employees increasingly claim that intolerable working conditions or fundamental changes to their role forced them to resign. While UAE Labour Law does not always use the term “constructive dismissal” explicitly, courts and tribunals recognise situations where an employer’s conduct effectively leaves an employee with no reasonable option but to resign, potentially treating the resignation as an unlawful termination. For employers, understanding how constructive dismissal is framed, evidenced and defended is essential to managing litigation risk and maintaining compliant HR practices.
Constructive dismissal typically arises when an employee resigns and alleges that the resignation was not voluntary but was triggered by the employer’s serious breach of contract or persistent unreasonable behaviour. The employee argues that the employer fundamentally changed the terms of employment, created a hostile environment or failed to remedy serious issues, making continued employment untenable. Courts then assess whether the employer’s actions amounted to a repudiation of the employment relationship.
Significant reductions in salary, benefits or commission structures, demotions without justification, or drastic changes to job responsibilities can trigger constructive dismissal claims. If the changes are imposed without consultation, consent or contractual authority, employees may argue that their core contract has been breached.
Employees may allege constructive dismissal where they face ongoing harassment, bullying, discrimination or victimisation and the employer fails to respond appropriately. Persistent tolerance of such conduct can be viewed as a failure to provide a safe and respectful workplace.
Unrealistic performance expectations, deliberate exclusion from projects, unjustified disciplinary actions or targeted micromanagement may be used as evidence that the employer was attempting to force the employee out.
When employees raise legitimate concerns about pay, workload, discrimination, safety or treatment and management consistently ignores or mishandles these grievances, they may claim that the employer’s inaction left them with no choice but to resign.
Repeated threats of termination, public criticism, marginalisation from decision making or removal of key responsibilities can cumulatively form the basis for constructive dismissal allegations.
While each case is fact specific, courts commonly assess several questions when evaluating constructive dismissal allegations:
The answers to these questions shape whether the court treats the resignation as voluntary or as a dismissal attributable to the employer.
Employers may defend claims by demonstrating that changes to roles, reporting lines or compensation were made for legitimate business reasons, in compliance with the employment contract and applicable law. Evidence of organisational restructuring, documented performance issues or market driven adjustments can support this defence.
Not all negative experiences or disagreements amount to constructive dismissal. Employers can argue that the actions taken did not fundamentally undermine the employment relationship and remained within the range of reasonable managerial discretion.
Where employees resign in response to disciplinary actions or performance management, employers may show that processes followed policy, were evidence based and were proportionate. Properly documented performance reviews, warnings and improvement plans are essential.
If the employee did not raise grievances, utilise reporting channels or escalate concerns before resigning, employers may argue that they were denied the opportunity to address issues, weakening claims that conditions were intolerable.
Long delays between alleged breaches and resignation can undermine constructive dismissal assertions. Employers may also highlight the employee’s own misconduct or breach of duty contributing to the breakdown of the relationship.
Effective defence against constructive dismissal allegations depends on strong documentation. Key records include:
Consistent, contemporaneous documentation allows employers to demonstrate that they acted fairly, lawfully and in good faith.
When restructuring roles, adjusting compensation or changing reporting lines, employers should consult employees, explain business reasons and document agreements or acknowledgements in writing.
Employers should implement clear, accessible grievance channels, respond promptly to complaints and document all steps taken. Fair, well documented handling of issues significantly reduces the risk that employees can claim they had no alternative but to resign.
Managers should be trained on appropriate communication, anti harassment standards, non discriminatory behaviour and lawful performance management techniques. Poor managerial behaviour is often at the heart of constructive dismissal claims.
HR teams and legal advisers should review major changes to employment terms, proposed disciplinary measures and sensitive workplace situations to ensure legal compliance and proportionality.
Where allegations arise, employers may opt for early resolution, including internal mediation, role adjustments or negotiated settlement agreements, to avoid protracted disputes, reputational harm and workforce disruption. Structured settlements can provide clarity on final entitlements and protect the business from future claims when properly documented and compliant with law.
Constructive dismissal allegations sit at the intersection of legal risk, workplace culture and HR governance. By maintaining transparent communication, respecting contractual boundaries, addressing grievances promptly and documenting decisions thoroughly, employers in the UAE can significantly reduce their exposure and handle such claims from a position of strength. A proactive approach not only mitigates litigation risk but also supports a healthier, more resilient employment environment.
```
