CM December 2023
THE CICM MAGAZINE FOR CONSUMER AND COMMERCIAL CREDIR PROFESSIONALS
THE CICM MAGAZINE FOR CONSUMER AND COMMERCIAL CREDIR PROFESSIONALS
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