Introduction
Should an employee be allowed to rescind their resignation? What if they report that their health was off baseline and affected their decision-making when they resigned? What if they seemed fine to you at the time and followed the formal process?
These are complex questions without one size fits all answers. However, there is much to learn from the case of Mrs S Bradley v The Royal Mint Ltd, where these queries were examined by an employment tribunal.
Context of the Case
Bradley was the Director of HR at the Royal Mint. She had a history of anxiety and depression and received a diagnosis of ADHD in 2022, which her employer was aware of.
She attempted to resign in 2012 and again in 2019, soon after experiencing a double bereavement. On both occasions, Jessop, the CEO to whom she directly reported, refused to accept her resignation on the basis that she seemed mentally unwell at the time.
After her ADHD diagnosis, Bradley began new treatment and stopped taking her prescribed medication for anxiety and depression. Medical reports from this period suggest her mental health worsened. She took a short period of sickness absence and then returned to work.
Shortly afterward, she handed in her resignation. CEO Jessop asked if she was okay, and Bradley explained that her decision was partly driven by a desire to pursue work with higher earning potential. The CEO did not find her behaviour around the resignation concerning and accepted her decision. Over the subsequent two weeks, Bradley informed colleagues of her decision, approved communications regarding her resignation, and confirmed her resignation in writing.
Around three weeks after her initial resignation, Bradley asked her manager to rescind it. She explained that she had been unwell when she made the decision. The CEO did not allow her to retract her resignation. Bradley challenged this decision, which ultimately culminated in an employment tribunal.Â
The Tribunal's Decision
The tribunal accepted that Bradley had been treated unfavorably as a result of her disability when her employer failed to allow her to rescind her resignation.
While the tribunal acknowledged that the employer had a legitimate aim in not allowing Bradley to retract her resignation—for operational and stability reasons within the business—it held that the employer fell short of achieving this aim through proportionate means. Specifically, it was determined that the employer should have sought medical expertise to assess the impact of Bradley’s health on her decision-making around the resignation.
Dr Lara Shemtob’s Expert Analysis and Key Takeaways
Though not the crux of the case, the human details in Bradley vs The Royal Mint illustrate the ups and downs of an individual’s life and how these can affect their work through changes in health, medical care, and social circumstances. All of these factors can influence disability status, which is most often defined based on functional impact of health rather than any specific diagnostic label.
A relevant aspect of the case is Bradley’s late-in-life ADHD diagnosis, which she pursued after learning more about the condition through her network. This scenario is increasingly common in occupational health practice and presents new challenges at the work-health interface, especially for individuals relying on NHS care, where pathways to diagnosis and treatment can be slow.
The case also demonstrates that while policies around all aspects of employment—including resignation—are helpful, there will always be exceptions.
The judgment underscores the importance for employers to leverage expertise when complex issues arise at the work-health interface. Treating clinicians (in this case, a consultant psychiatrist involved in Bradley’s ADHD care) may not be positioned nor tasked within their role to make assessments regarding health and work. The Royal Mint Ltd argued that they did not seek occupational health expertise because Bradley had previously declined such a referral and, being a senior HR professional, should have had the knowledge and resources to self-refer. The tribunal rejected the notion that a referral to occupational
health would have made no difference to the outcome.
Organisational learning points
Organisations can learn the following from this case:
Recognise when they are dealing with nuanced issues at the work-health interface and appreciate the value of specialised expertise. These issues may arise at any point during the employment journey, including on-employment and around resignation.
Understand the distinction between medical treatment an employee may (and in some cases may not) be receiving, and expert support for queries about the relationship between work and health.
Engage appropriate occupational health expertise and explicitly offer this support to the employee, encouraging its utilisation—even if the individual is senior enough to self-refer and even if it has been declined previously.
By taking these steps, employers can better support their employees and maintain the productivity of their workforce, while also safeguarding their organisations from potential legal challenges.
Comments