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

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

< Older Post Newer Post >

A person in a white lab coat and pink gloves holds a small rainbow heart pin, with a stethoscope draped around their neck.

Did the use of NHS changing room by transgender woman give rise to claims for harassment and/or indirect discrimination?

February 3, 2026

Did the use of NHS changing room by transgender woman give rise to claims for harassment and/or indirect discrimination?

A person with long dark hair, wearing a green and orange patterned top, looks toward the camera against a black background.

Tribunal ruling puts ‘up or out’ employment policies under scrutiny

February 3, 2026

The appeal judgment criticised the original tribunal’s handling of both disability and justification issues. The judgment indicates that employers making dismissals based on assessment of readiness for promotion, without the employee having carried out the work for the role above, will struggle to show that decision is

A person smiling at the camera, wearing a green and orange patterned top against a dark, plain background.

Ms Sanju Pal succeeds in appeal against Accenture at the Employment Appeal Tribunal

January 19, 2026

Ms Sanju Pal succeeds in appeal against Accenture at the Employment Appeal Tribunal – Tribunal’s reasoning on disability discrimination due to endometriosis was “wholly inadequate” and the decision could not stand

Two hands wearing rainbow-colored bracelets come together to form a heart shape.

Non-binary identity does not give rise to the protected characteristic of gender reassignment

December 18, 2025

A tribunal ruled non-binary identity does not amount to gender reassignment. Learn the legal reasoning and workplace implications with Kilgannon Law.

The Houses of Parliament in London at dusk, with the illuminated Elizabeth Tower reflected in the River Thames.

The dismissal of a cleaner employed in two jobs working 17 hour days was fair

December 11, 2025

A tribunal has held that the dismissal of a cleaner working two jobs and 17-hour days was fair. Learn why the decision was upheld, the key factors considered, and what this means for employers managing fatigue and safety risks.

Two people exchange documents across a desk in a bright office; one person smiles while receiving a paper.

Assurances by CEO bind Company to extend share options post-employment

December 10, 2025

Understand how employee share options work, the different types available, and their tax implications. Learn how share schemes can reward staff, attract talent, and support business growth.

Two professionals in business attire discuss work at a desk with a laptop and documents.

ACAS Early Conciliation: Why more time may not be the best healer

By Dominic Holmes • November 10, 2025

From 1 December 2025, ACAS early conciliation will double to 12 weeks. Discover what this change means, how it affects tribunal time limits and backlogs, and why more time may not always benefit employees or employers.

A person in a black suit sits at a white desk with their hands clasped next to a white coffee mug.

Sanju Pal v Accenture UK Ltd - An appeal on endometriosis and the corporate consulting model - Category A in the Employment Appeal Tribunal on 9 and 10 December 2025

By GERARD AIREY • September 1, 2025

Analysis of Sanju Pal v Accenture UK Ltd: appeal on endometriosis, consulting model, and Category A classification in the EAT, 9–10 Dec 2025.

Hands resting on a wooden desk, using a calculator next to bank checks, cash, and glasses.

National Living Wage and Minimum Wage - Rate Changes

March 31, 2025

A full time employee that is over 21 will soon be earning nearly £24,000 per annum which could mean that more employees are close to the minimum wage. Having an employee working close to the minimum wage poses risks to businesses. For example, if an employee works any overtime, they may then fall below the minimum wage.

A woman in a dark blazer writes at a desk in an office with two colleagues working in the background.

Essential Steps to Navigate New UK Employment Laws: Preventing Workplace Sexual Harassment

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.

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