Blog Layout

Gerard Airey and Courtney Step-Marsden succeed in statutory redundancy pay claim

Gerard Airey and Courtney Step-Marsden succeed in statutory redundancy pay claim - The Claimant was entitled to refuse an offer to take a lower-ranked role within a very large project

The facts:


The Claimant, Luke Robinson, was employed by Guys and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’) from 20 June 2011. Initially he was employed as a General Manager, which is a grade 8c role. He was then engaged in a number of fixed-term secondments over a period of 9 years in which he was working as a Programme Director (‘PD’), which is a grade 8d role.


In January 2022 the Claimant confirmed to the Trust that his latest secondment at the Isle of Wight was ending and he asked to meet to discuss roles that may be open to him at the Respondent. As his substantive role was redundant and there were no other roles available, the Claimant was going to be made redundant with effect from 15 June 2022.


On 4 April 2022 an EHR Programme Manager (‘PM’) role (grade 8c) was created. The Claimant was not matched to this role through the Trust’s Interim Organisational Change Policy. He was approached about the role on 27 May 2022 and provided the job description on 30 May 2022. He confirmed to the Trust that he did not believe this to be suitable alternative employment due to a number of factors including loss of status, autonomy and responsibility.


The Trust invited the Claimant to a matching interview on 13 June 2022. The Claimant was unwell and as a result the Trust wrote to him and offered him the role. He refused this as he did not believe it to be suitable and he requested his redundancy pay. The Trust refused to pay this sum and the Claimant therefore brought a claim for his statutory redundancy pay entitlement.


The Law:

 

In claims relating to refusal of an offer of alternative employment the Tribunal is required to assess if the offer is objectively suitable. If so, it then goes on to consider whether the employee acted subjectively reasonably in rejecting it. That assessment is based upon whether it is suitable to that particular employee. The Tribunal will ask itself, does the job match the person and their skills, aptitudes and experience. The level of responsibility and status involved must be considered.


The Tribunal must judge the decision to reject the offer from the employee’s point of view. The burden of showing the job offer was suitable and the employee’s refusal was unreasonable is on the employer. Each case will be fact sensitive. Generally, a drop in status may make a role unsuitable even if earnings are maintained by way of pay protection. The fact a role is temporary may make it unsuitable and the timing of the offer will also be relevant, although not a decisive factor in terms of whether the employee acted reasonably in refusing an offer made shortly before the termination date.


Conclusion:


The Tribunal found that the Trust failed to follow its own Interim Organisational Change Policy in concluding the role was a suitable one for the Claimant. The Trust applied a test of whether it was “more likely than not” that the roles matched. This was more so a 51% match test rather than a 70% match test, which was the test required by the policy.


The Tribunal also found that the step down from 8d to 8c would inevitably have had some significance. It was held that the Claimant not reporting to the board was also a considerable step down in terms of his place in the hierarchy. The Claimant had significant autonomy in his PD role but in the new role he would be 1 of 8 PMs reporting to a Head of Programmes who was even then 2 steps below the ultimate PD.


The Tribunal noted that the Claimant managed a budget of £25M in his PD role at the Isle of Wight and had line managed staff. Before the Tribunal, there was no evidence of his budgetary responsibility and line management responsibility in the new role. Having considered the situation in the round, the Tribunal held that the role wasn’t objectively suitable. The loss of status, autonomy and responsibility were simply too great to render the role objectively suitable in the circumstances.


The Tribunal went on to hold that even had the role been objectively suitable then it would also have found that the Claimant acted subjectively reasonably in rejecting it. The matching interview was ‘somewhat out of the blue’ scheduled to take place 2 days before his dismissal. Even thought the Claimant was off sick, the offer was then made 2 days before employment was due to terminate, the Claimant had told the Trust he didn’t believe the role would be suitable. The Trust then made no real attempt to engage with him about the question of responsibility, autonomy and status. It was not reasonable to ask the Claimant to take a lower-ranked role within a very large project and become a smaller cog in a very large wheel.


Comment:

The case shows that when looking at suitable alternative employment, it is not as simple as saying that a role a band below will automatically be suitable. The Tribunal will need to scrutinise whether the offer really was suitable taking into account fact-sensitive considerations. The case also highlights the importance of employers complying with their own policies in this type of situation. It is also important to note that the Claimant was not unreasonable in refusing the role given the fact the offer was made only 2 days before his termination.


The full Tribunal judgment can be found here:



Our expert employment law solicitors all have many years’ experience advising individuals who are in your position. We will be able to guide you through the process and to help you secure the best possible outcome.


We offer a range of services, so please contact our friendly customer services team to discuss further via hello@kilgannonlaw.co.uk or 0800 915 7777.

This article is for information purposes only and is correct at the time of publication. It does not constitute legal advice 22.03.2024


A woman is sitting at a table in an office writing on a piece of paper.
January 13, 2025
Kilgannon & Partners outlines key steps to comply with the new UK duty to prevent workplace sexual harassment. Services include risk assessments, policy updates, staff training, and confidential reporting. Contact us for support.
A person is holding an approved stamp in their hand.
By Natasha Davies December 16, 2024
The UK Home Office has expanded its sponsor licence priority services to offer greater flexibility and faster processing for prospective and current sponsors of migrant workers. Removal of the Pre-Licence Priority Service Cap Previously, the Home Office limited the number of daily applications for its pre-licence priority service to 30. This daily cap has now been removed. The pre-licence priority service is designed for organisations that have applied for a sponsor licence and seek to bring skilled workers to the UK more swiftly. By paying a £500 fee, applicants can reduce their waiting time from approximately eight weeks to around ten working days.
The inside of a courtroom with a judge 's bench and chairs.
By Gerard Airey December 16, 2024
Kilgannon and Partners are pleased to post that our client, Carmen Chevalier-Firescu, has succeeded in defending an appeal from HSBC about the strike out of her claim in the Court of Appeal. Carmen’s claim was initially struck out by the East London Employment Tribunal. One of the reasons given was that it was not just and equitable to extend time. The Employment Appeal Tribunal decided that this needed to be revisited by the Tribunal. This led to HSBC appealing to the Court of Appeal to try and reinstate the original decision.
A woman is sitting at a desk writing in a notebook with a pen.
By Natasha Davies December 12, 2024
An employer must check right to work through one of the following three methods before the employee commences employment
A man is sitting in a chair talking on a cell phone.
By Louise Maynard October 31, 2024
Extension of whistleblowing protection: A case of public importance: Disclosures made before commencement of employment and disclosures made by charity trustees.
A pregnant woman is sitting at a table holding her belly.
By Kilgannon & Partners October 8, 2024
At Kilgannon and Partners, we are proud to support the movement towards more flexible working arrangements, as emphasised in the recent report by Pregnant Then Screwed. This groundbreaking report sheds light on the transformative impact flexible working can have on employees, employers, and society as a whole.
A man and a woman are sitting at a table looking at papers.
By Marianne Wright August 11, 2024
Unfair dismissal claims are among the most common types of cases brought before employment tribunals. Defending these claims effectively requires careful strategy, meticulous preparation, and a strong understanding of the legal complexities involved. This article outlines key strategies for UK employers to maximise their chances of success in unfair dismissal cases.
A man is laying on a couch reading a book.
By Yeing-Chang Long August 11, 2024
The concept of a 4-day work week—where employees work the same number of hours but compressed into four days instead of five—has been gaining momentum globally. With a large-scale UK trials showing overwhelmingly positive results, many businesses are pondering if this could be the future of work.
A black and white photo of big ben and the labour logo
By Louise Maynard August 5, 2024
The Labour Government has set itself a big target to modernise the world of work by promising to introduce legislation within 100 days of entering government.
A black and white photo of big ben and the labour logo
By Kilgannon & Partners July 22, 2024
During the election, Labour pledged to initiate substantial reforms to UK employment law within the first 100 days of taking office. While these changes will likely be proposed quickly, the process to enact them into law will take time. This article outlines the proposed reforms from Labour’s 2024 manifesto and their "Plan to Make Work Pay: Delivering a New Deal for Working People," providing an overview of what UK employers can expect.
More Posts
Share by: