Mr K Young v North Tyneside Council — 2021

Mr Young had been employed by North Tyneside Council since 29 March 1993 and was dismissed for redundancy on 7 June 2021 after a January 2021 restructure replaced four Operations Manager posts with three Service Delivery Manager posts. The tribunal found that the respondent's Restructure and Redundancy Policy and related FAQs, which were drawn to Mr Young's attention during consultation, supported an implied contractual entitlement to an enhanced redundancy payment because they set out a definite payment method and were communicated as part of the redundancy process.

The tribunal accepted that communications between the parties amounted to an offer of the Service Delivery Manager role, even though no formal written offer was issued in the usual form. It held that the respondent had not shown the role was suitable alternative employment under s.141 ERA 1996. The decisive factors were the reduction in overall remuneration once Mr Young's protected car allowance was taken into account, the lower grade, and the increased status and responsibilities of the new role.

Because the role was not suitable alternative employment, the tribunal held that Mr Young did not unreasonably refuse it for the purposes of s.141 ERA 1996 and therefore retained his entitlement to a statutory redundancy payment. It also held that he did not lose entitlement to the respondent's enhanced redundancy payment under the scheme. The tribunal cited Ugradar v Lancashire Care NHS Foundation Trust [2019] UKEAT 0301/18 in stating that the statutory redundancy payment is payable in addition to the contractual redundancy payment, with only the contractual element subject to the £25,000 cap. The judgment did not finally fix the payable sum and directed the parties to agree remedy or seek a remedy hearing if necessary.