Loss of the redundancy payment under s.141 ERA 1996 where suitable alternative employment is offered and unreasonably refused. Cambridge and District Co-operative Society Ltd v Ruse.
Redundancy; suitable alternative employment; burden of proof. Where an employer relies on an employee's refusal of an offer of suitable alternative employment to defeat a redundancy payment, the burden of establishing that the refusal was unreasonable lies on the employer, not the employee. The tribunal had misplaced the burden, but the employees' appeals failed because it had also found as a fact, on its assessment of the evidence and independently of the burden of proof, that their refusal of work on the same terms at another factory across Birmingham was unreasonable.
Redundancy; suitable alternative employment; objective suitability vs subjective reasonableness. The EAT held that suitability of alternative employment is an objective question, but the reasonableness of the employee's refusal is a subjective question to be assessed from the employee's point of view. An employee can reasonably refuse an objectively suitable offer on the basis of their personal perception of the post. A butcher's shop manager offered the post of butchery department manager in a supermarket could reasonably refuse it because of his perceived loss of status, although the offer was objectively suitable.
Cited by
References found in the judgments’ text, with the number of paragraphs in which each case is mentioned. Not a classification: how a case was treated is recorded under Later history.
Redundancy; suitable alternative employment; two questions. Keith J held that, under s.141 ERA 1996, the questions are whether the offer was of suitable employment for the employee and whether her refusal of it was reasonable. The two must be considered separately but are not completely unrelated: the more suitable the offer, the easier it may be for the employer to show that the refusal was unreasonable. Suitability asks whether the job suits the particular person's skill, aptitudes and experience. The tribunal had erred by substituting its own view of the reasonableness of her reasons, rather than considering whether someone in her particular circumstances could reasonably have taken the view of the post which she did.
Redundancy; suitable alternative employment; subjective reasonableness; the Court of Appeal held that in assessing whether an employee unreasonably refused an offer of suitable alternative employment under s.141 ERA 1996, there is a 'strong element of subjectivity in the test'. The question is whether, from the employee's point of view on the facts as they appeared or ought reasonably to have appeared at the time, the refusal was reasonable. The 'band of reasonable responses' test from unfair dismissal does not apply.
Cites
References found in the judgments’ text, with the number of paragraphs in which each case is mentioned. Not a classification: how a case was treated is recorded under Later history.
Redundancy; suitable alternative employment; reasonable refusal; the EAT confirmed that genuinely held concerns about a change in the character of one's working environment, including loss of autonomy and status, can ground a reasonable refusal of an offer of suitable alternative employment under s.141 ERA 1996, even where the alternative role is objectively suitable.
Cites
References found in the judgments’ text, with the number of paragraphs in which each case is mentioned. Not a classification: how a case was treated is recorded under Later history.