Alternative employment for redundant employees
We round up four recent employment tribunal decisions where employers' actions have resulted in pregnancy and maternity discrimination claims and provide practical tips on how to reduce the risks of similar claims.
In Taylor-Hamieh v The Ritz Hotel Casino Ltd, an employment tribunal held that a redundancy exercise that effectively ruled a pregnant employee out of an available role in the Middle East was discriminatory. The tribunal's £50,121 award included £25,000 for injury to feelings.
In Aramark (UK) Ltd v Fernandes, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the employer's failure to put a redundant employee on a list of bank workers was not unreasonable, within the meaning of s.98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
In George v London Borough of Brent, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that the employer's failure to comply with a contractual obligation to offer a redundant employee a trial period for a possible alternative role was likely to render the dismissal unfair.
The Court of Appeal has confirmed that the question of whether or not a potentially redundant employee's refusal to accept alternative employment is reasonable requires a subjective test.
Claire Benson, Rebekah Martin and Poppy Fildes, associates at Addleshaw Goddard, detail the latest rulings.
If a redundant employee unreasonably rejects an offer of suitable alternative employment, he or she will not be entitled to a statutory redundancy payment. This case is a short and clear example of the factors that a tribunal will weigh up when determining this issue.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that, when deciding whether or not a redundant employee's refusal of an offer of suitable alternative employment is reasonable, an employment tribunal is entitled to take into account the degree of suitability of the new job.
In Ralph Martindale & Co Ltd v Harris EAT/0166/07, the EAT held that a redundancy dismissal was unfair where the process for deciding who should be offered an alternative post involved no objective criteria and no attempt to assess the candidates against a job description. It was unfair for the employer to rely mainly on a subjective assessment of whose management style would best suit the new post.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to alternative employment for redundant employees.