Should you be allowed to rescind your resignation if it was submitted hastily during a mental health crisis? In the case of Bradley v The Royal Mint Ltd, a senior employee, Mrs Bradley, handed in her resignation to pursue more lucrative opportunities. Following the announcement of her departure to the business, Mrs Bradley asked to rescind her resignation, stating that she had not been herself at the time. Mrs Bradley's request to withdraw her resignation was refused by her manager.
Background
Mrs Bradley started working for The Royal Mint in 2009, most recently as Director of HR and reporting directly to the CEO. Since 2013, Mrs Bradley had suffered from depression and anxiety. In 2022, she received a diagnosis of ADHD, which her employer was aware of.
Mrs Bradley was prone to becoming impatient and having emotional outbursts. In 2019 and 2012, Mrs Bradley attempted to terminate her employment amidst previous meltdowns, but on each occasion her manager refused to accept her resignation on the basis that the decisions were being made when she was unwell.
Mrs Bradley was prescribed medication for her ADHD in March 2024 and simultaneously came off her anti-depressants. The combination of both had a significant impact on her, leadings to suicidal thoughts and extreme rages. However, generally Mrs Bradley presented herself as normal at work and would mask how she was really feeling in the workplace.
In May, Mrs Bradley took a few days off work. She explained to her manager that the "mania was over", but that she was feeling exhausted. On her return from work, she appeared to be behaving normally.
On 15 June, Mrs Bradley informed her manager that she was resigning to pursue opportunities to earn more money. Her manager, who was mindful of previous resignations, asked her if she was okay. Mrs Bradley explained that the reasons for her resignation included money, taking more lucrative interim roles in London and that her job was becoming stale and repetitive. Her manager was of the view that she had considered her decision thoroughly, was not showing any sign of concern and accepted her resignation. Mrs Bradley informed her colleagues a week later and approved an announcement about her departure to the business. On 27 June, Mrs Bradley put her resignation in writing, and it was confirmed that she would work her notice period.
On 4 July, Mrs Bradley asked to rescind her resignation, explaining to her manager that she had not been herself at the time. Mrs Bradley's request to withdraw her resignation was refused by her manager on the basis that her resignation had been communicated widely through the business and due to concerns that she may resign again.
Mrs Bradley lodged a number of claims in the Employment Tribunal, including that she had been treated unfavourably as a result of her disability.
Decision
The Tribunal accepted that Mrs Bradley had suffered unfavourable treatment arising from disability by her employer failing to allow the resignation to be rescinded.
The second stage of this type of claim requires a Tribunal to evaluate whether the employer's treatment of their employee is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The Tribunal accepted that the employer had a legitimate aim in not allowing Mrs Bradley to withdraw her resignation, being described as maintaining reasonable operational integrity and expediency and maintaining stability within the number of senior executives in the business. Although the Tribunal decided that this was a legitimate aim, it was held that the steps taken by the employer to achieve it were not proportionate as the employer should have taken more steps to explore the reason why Mrs Bradley resigned and should have paused to obtain medical advice regarding the impact of her disabilities on her decision making before reaching a decision.
Lessons for employers
When an employee resigns in the "heat of the moment", where words are spoken during an argument or a stressful time, an employer should afford the employee a reasonable period of time to withdraw their resignation. It is also important to consider an employee's mental state before deciding how to proceed. Furthermore, if the employee has a disability that may have affected their decision-making, you may need to take additional steps beyond the standard cooling-off period.
An employee's resignation should generally be taken at face value when they have used unambiguous language. However, there may be specific situations where it is necessary to examine the context in which the resignation was given and for particular care to be taken, particularly when an employee might be deemed disabled.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.