Redundancy and Offers of Reasonable Alternative Employment


Tribunals must assess the reasonableness of the employee and not the reasonableness of any employee.

Author: Dennis Chapman
Reading time: 2 minutes

This article is 10 years old.

Read our disclaimer keyboard_arrow_down

This website content is intended as a general guide to law as it applies to the motor trade. Lawgistics has taken every effort to ensure that the contents are as accurate and up to date as at the date of first publication.

The laws and opinions expressed within this website may be varied as the law develops. As such we cannot accept liability for or the consequence of, any change of law, or official guidelines since publication or any misuse of the information provided.

The opinions in this website are based upon the experience of the authors and it must be recognised that only the courts and recognised tribunals can interpret the law with authority.

Examples given within the website are based on the experience of the authors and centre upon issues that commonly give rise to disputes. Each situation in practice will be different and may comprise several points commented upon.

If you have any doubt about the correct legal position you should seek further legal advice from Lawgistics or a suitably qualified solicitor. We cannot accept liability for your failure to take professional advice where it should reasonably be sought by a prudent person.

All characters are fictitious and should not be taken as referring to any person living or dead.

Use of this website shall be considered acceptance of the terms of the disclaimer presented above.

In the recent Employment Appeal Tribunal’s case of Readman V Devon Primary Care Trust, it was ruled that when measuring reasonableness in regards to the alternative employment offered, Tribunals must assess the reasonableness of the employee and not the reasonableness of any employee.

Ms Readman had worked as a community nurse for over 25 years, and was subject to redundancy, during which she was offered 3 alternative positions, one being a position of Matron in a Hospital, It was later ruled by the Employment Tribunal that this was a suitable alternative under Section 141(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

On this basis the Tribunal claimed that the Respondent had been correct in failing to pay a redundancy payment, on the basis that Ms Readman had rejected a reasonable offer of employment.

The decision was overturned by the Appeal Tribunal, who deemed that whilst they were correct in stating that the position of Matron was a suitable alternative to offer Ms Readman, the application of the reasonableness test was incorrect.

The Original Tribunal applied the test of reasonableness to be that of, whether a reasonable employee would have accepted this offer of employment. The question to ask is was it reasonable for Ms Readman to refuse the offer of employment, aside from what others would choose to do. It was ruled that Ms Readman had been reasonable in her rejection of the position due to the period of time which had elapsed since she had worked in a hospitalised environment.

It is thus for employers to take careful consideration as to what they choose to offer people as an alternative position, during redundancy proceedings. Offers of any job cannot just been made, as it must be considered how the specific employee will respond to the position offered. 

Dennis Chapman

In remembrance of Dennis Chapman 1951 -2015

Read more by this author

Getting in touch

You can contact us via the form or you can call us on 01480 455500.