26.11.2023 Views

CM December 2023

THE CICM MAGAZINE FOR CONSUMER AND COMMERCIAL CREDIR PROFESSIONALS

THE CICM MAGAZINE FOR CONSUMER AND COMMERCIAL CREDIR PROFESSIONALS

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

HR MATTERS<br />

Love action<br />

Blowing the whistle on revenge,<br />

Love and Royal Assent.<br />

AUTHOR – Gareth Edwards<br />

IN Love v M B Farm Produce Ltd, a Tribunal<br />

has found that an employee’s entitlement<br />

to a statutory redundancy payment was not<br />

reinstated after they unreasonably rejected<br />

an offer of suitable alternative employment,<br />

and then changed their mind.<br />

As was reported, the claimant worked at a farm<br />

shop that was due to close. She was at risk of<br />

redundancy. Her employer offered her an alternative<br />

role at another farm shop. Love initially rejected the<br />

offer due to concerns about the commute to her<br />

new workplace.<br />

When her employer then confirmed she would<br />

no longer be entitled to a statutory redundancy<br />

payment, she reconsidered her position and<br />

asked to take up the vacancy on a trial period.<br />

Her employer rejected the request and made<br />

her redundant without a statutory redundancy<br />

payment. Love brought a claim for a statutory<br />

redundancy payment and for unfair dismissal.<br />

The Tribunal rejected the claim for a statutory<br />

redundancy payment. The relevant statutory<br />

provision confirms that the entitlement to a<br />

statutory redundancy payment will be lost if a<br />

suitable position is offered and unreasonably<br />

refused. It does not cater for a scenario whereby the<br />

entitlement to a statutory redundancy payment can<br />

be restored if the employee changes their mind.<br />

However, the Tribunal upheld the claimant's<br />

unfair dismissal claim. The employer should have<br />

explored the possibility of the claimant taking up<br />

the alternative role subject to a trial period as she<br />

ultimately suggested, albeit this would not have<br />

restored her entitlement to a statutory redundancy<br />

payment.<br />

This is a first instance decision and not binding<br />

on other tribunals. In addition, whilst the Tribunal<br />

found in favour of the employer in respect of the<br />

entitlement to a statutory redundancy payment, it<br />

is possible that the opposite conclusion might have<br />

been reached. Employers ought to think through the<br />

legal and commercial risks and benefits of refusing<br />

a statutory redundancy payment before deciding on<br />

next steps.<br />

The relevant statutory provision<br />

confirms that the entitlement to a<br />

statutory redundancy payment will<br />

be lost if a suitable position is<br />

offered and unreasonably refused.<br />

Brave | Curious | Resilient / www.cicm.com / <strong>December</strong> <strong>2023</strong> / PAGE 52

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!