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; two-stage test. The EAT confirmed the two-stage test under s.141 ERA 1996: first, whether the offer was of suitable employment (objective); second, whether the employee had sound and justifiable reasons for refusing the offer (subjective, from the employee's perspective). The burden of proving both limbs rests on the employer. [Summary not yet checked against the judgment.]
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.