M Birkett v Integral UK Ltd
[2024] EAT 107
Mid and South Essex NHS Foundation Trust v Catriona Stevenson & Ors
31 August 2023
[2023] EAT 115
Employment Appeal Tribunal
Three people lost their high-powered jobs and were offered lower ones. Even though the new jobs were fine, the court said it was understandable that the people didn't want them because they felt the new jobs weren't as good. So, they got their redundancy pay.
Key Facts
- •Three claimants (Heads of Human Resources) were made redundant due to a restructure.
- •They were offered alternative roles as Senior HR Leads, which they refused.
- •The employer refused to pay redundancy payments, arguing unreasonable refusal of suitable employment.
- •The Employment Tribunal initially ruled against the claimants, but this was overturned on appeal due to insufficient analysis of suitability.
- •On remission, the Tribunal found the alternative roles suitable but that the claimants did not unreasonably refuse them.
Legal Principles
An employee is not entitled to a redundancy payment if they unreasonably refuse an offer of suitable employment.
Section 141, Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA)
The suitability of the offered employment must be assessed in relation to the individual employee's skills, aptitudes, and experience.
Bird v Stoke-on-Trent PCT UKEAT/0074/11
The question of reasonableness focuses on whether the *particular* employee acted unreasonably, considering their personal circumstances, not whether a reasonable employee would have accepted.
Executors of J F Everest v Cox [1980] I.C.R. 415; Bird v Stoke-On-Trent Primary Care Trust UKEAT/0074/11; Harvey on Industrial Relations and Employment Law
An employee's personal perception of a role, even if objectively groundless, can make their refusal reasonable if it's not groundless from their perspective.
Bird v Stoke-On-Trent Primary Care Trust UKEAT/0074/11; Cambridge and District Co-operative Ltd v Ruse [1993] IRLR 156; Denton v Neepsend Ltd [1976] IRLR 164
Suitability and reasonableness are separate but interrelated questions. A more suitable offer makes it easier to show unreasonable refusal.
Bird v Stoke-On-Trent Primary Care Trust UKEAT/0074/11
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Employment Tribunal correctly applied the law. While the alternative roles were deemed suitable, the claimants' perceptions of reduced autonomy and status, though objectively groundless, were not groundless from their viewpoint, making their refusal not unreasonable.