A recent employment tribunal has ruled that assigning a senior employee a desk perceived as lower in status could breach employment law, as it might reasonably be interpreted as a demotion. This raises questions of how unilateral changes to working conditions can lead to claims of unfair constructive dismissal.
Desk drama at estate agency Robsons
Nicholas Walker had been a branch manager for five years at Robsons, a Hertfordshire estate agency, when he was assigned to sit at a “middle” desk, rather than the “back” where the manager was typically positioned. Following a disagreement with his manager due to his seat allocation, Walker, who was also a director of the agency, immediately submitted his resignation and has now been awarded £24,411 in compensation.
This tribunal decision highlights how physical changes, such as desk placements, can be interpreted as a demotion, causing a breakdown of trust and confidence. It is also important to recognise how open dialogue and effective communication could have avoided such legal pitfalls in this case between employees, management and HR teams.
“It’s only a desk” – or is it?
Physical space in the workplace often carries symbolic meaning that goes beyond its basic function and can subtly communicate hierarchy, authority and inclusion. When these spatial cues shift, especially without explanation, they can unintentionally signal a change in status.
In the case of Walker, a senior estate agent and director, he was assigned to a “middle” desk, while a junior colleague was placed at the “back”. Walker claimed the desk at the back of the office had “practical and symbolic” significance. And it was agreed by the employment tribunal that allocating this to Walker’s junior, without explanation or assurance, reasonably led Walker to believe his role had been diminished.
This incident serves to remind employers that when changes to additional benefits of a role, such as desk position, are made without context, they risk being misinterpreted. Inadvertently, they may also erode trust and confidence, which is recognised as a key implied term in employment contracts.
If an organisation is going to change physical allocations, this should be accompanied by transparent communication that affirms an individual’s role and contributions.
Communication breakdown: A preventable fallout
Effective communication among staff – and arguably even more so between senior employees and management – is the cornerstone of a harmonious working environment. The escalation of Walker’s case, in the absence of meaningful dialogue with his boss, ultimately led to his resignation and the tribunal finding in favour of unfair constructive dismissal.
The tribunal heard that Walker’s concerns about his desk position were met with disbelief and a dismissive remark referencing his age by his senior. The judge felt the manager’s retort in connection with his age could have been said to anyone over the age of 18 to allege immaturity. Still, the judge believed that those in senior positions should still be expected to behave in a proper manner, upholding respectful and professional standards and setting an example to other employees.
In this instance, the judge’s ruling could be deemed generous when dismissing ageism in this case, particularly as Walker resigned because his position became untenable after his boss’s response and bullish comments.
Rather than engaging with Walker’s discomfort or offering reassurance about his role, management failed to acknowledge the symbolic weight the change carried. This lack of empathy and explanation contributed directly to the breakdown of trust, leaving room for misinterpretation and resentment.
What could have been a simple conversation became a catalyst for legal action.
Keeping your cool as an employer
Management should prioritise proactive communication and always explain the rationale behind decisions, even those that may seem like routine operational matters. What appears minor from a leadership perspective can feel significant to staff, particularly senior employees. Failing to acknowledge this can erode trust.
To resolve tensions in the workplace, it’s also necessary to reflect on how the wider staff team may interpret decisions made after a disagreement.
Where uncertainty arises, employers should involve HR early to guide discussions and ensure that the approach taken is fair and amicable for both parties. A more collaborative process with HR can prevent issues from escalating.
In Walker’s case, HR was consulted as an afterthought, when the argument had already occurred and Walker had informed management he wanted to resign. This, ultimately, reduced the effectiveness of HR’s involvement. Rather than looking to rectify the underlying concern, the employer – on HR advice – doubled down and sought to seek to force the issue by suggesting there could be disciplinary action for failing to follow a management request.
Line managers, in particular, need training not only on formal procedures but also on the skills required to manage difficult conversations with an unhappy colleague. Active listening and empathy can go a long way in preventing further disputes or claims.
Employers should note that even if a dismissal is seen as necessary, that doesn’t automatically deem it fair. When HR is used as a support, rather than a procedural formality, it can help foster such amicable conversations between managers and employees.
To discuss or not to discuss
Walker’s case may have limited application to others due to the specific circumstances between him and his management. But still, it highlights an important issue: workplace arrangements that become an unofficial expectation – such as seat allocation or parking spaces – should not be altered without consultation.
To avoid creating unintended contractual obligations, employers should be clear in contracts about which terms can be adjusted unilaterally and which require discussion. With reforms to the Employment Rights Bill expected in late 2026, this clarity is becoming increasingly urgent. Organisations will face greater restrictions on ‘fire and rehire’ practices when changing terms in contracts.
What’s more, employees may be tempted to use cases like this to broaden the scope for challenging management decisions or alleging differential treatment. Employers therefore need to be proactive about putting in measures to mediate these issues. Training, assessing contracts and cultivating an open and honest environment take time to implement. Working on these now will pay dividends in the end, as it will help minimise the fallout when a situation arises.
