Ms A Rao v East London NHS Foundation Trust — 2020

The tribunal held that the claimant’s role had become redundant as part of the respondent’s reorganisation of psychological therapies services, but the issue was whether she remained entitled to a redundancy payment. The respondent relied on its offer of the Consultant Psychological Therapist/Training Lead – Specialist East London Hub role and contended that this was suitable alternative employment which the claimant had unreasonably refused.

The tribunal found that the April 2018 Hub role was a valid offer for the purposes of section 141 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It concluded that, although the new role differed from the claimant’s previous borough lead role, it was at the same band and salary, retained consultant status, was full-time, and required similar skills, knowledge and seniority. The tribunal accepted the respondent’s case that the role was more strategic and Trust-wide in focus rather than a reduction in level.

On reasonableness of refusal, the tribunal took account of the claimant’s long service, the stress of repeated reorganisations, and her concerns about status, responsibilities, and the viability of the Hub. It nevertheless found that the respondent had addressed those concerns, had modified the earlier mixed 8b/8c proposal, and had offered a role tailored to her seniority and experience. The tribunal concluded that the claimant unreasonably refused suitable alternative employment and therefore was not entitled to a redundancy payment, so the claim was dismissed.