FAQ/redundancy – when should UK employers offer an alternative role instead of dismissal?

One of the key risks in a redundancy process is moving too quickly to dismissal without properly considering whether there is another role the employee could do. Get that wrong, and the consequences can be significant.

Failing to identify or offer suitable alternative employment can make a dismissal unfair, even where the redundancy situation itself is genuine. That can expose employers to costly compensation awards, as well as the time and cost of defending tribunal claims.

The law treats consideration of suitable alternative employment as part of a fair redundancy process, and guidance from Acas continues to emphasise redeployment as a key step before dismissal.

So what does that mean in practice? With the answer, on line from Glasgow, Laura Kennedy:

Laura Kennedy: “As part of a fair process, employers should always consider whether there are any suitable alternative roles available within the organisation. That obligation arises before any decision to dismiss is taken. What is ‘suitable’ depends on a number of factors but typically will include things such as the nature of the role, the skills required, the terms and conditions, and the location of the role. It’s a question of what is reasonable in the circumstances. This isn’t just about HR circulating vacancies and thinking that’s good enough. Employers need to take reasonable steps to identify roles that may be suitable and actually bring those to the employee’s attention.”

Joe Glavina: “So is this something employers only need to think about at the end of the process, once selection has taken place?”

Laura Kennedy: “No, it should run throughout the process. As roles are identified as at risk, employers should be actively considering redeployment and discussing options with affected employees. Leaving it too late is risky, particularly if a suitable role was available but not properly considered before dismissal.”

Joe Glavina: “And what happens if a suitable alternative role is identified?”

Laura Kennedy: “If an employee is offered a role which is objectively suitable and they unreasonably refuse it; they may lose their entitlement to a statutory redundancy payment. There is also a statutory four-week trial period where the role is different, allowing both sides to assess whether it works in practice. But the key point for employers is engagement. A failure to offer a suitable role, or even to consider it properly, can undermine the fairness of the dismissal.” 

We have added this programme to our FAQs series of programmes. To find them, just type ‘FAQ/redundancy’ into the search engine on the Out-Law website.