Mrs T sought a redundancy payment on termination of her employment as a collector. The employer was to close the depot where she worked in Coventry, offering her first employment in Northampton. On her unhappiness at this she was offered work in Erdington. This involved a similar route, but because of additional travel took longer. She offered to try the route, but the employer did not say that it was a trial. Additional delays extended yet further her day. The employers appealed from the award of a redundancy payment saying that she had not been dismissed.
Held: The tribunal had made no error in law in finding that Mrs Thomas had been entitled to refuse to continue to work under the new conditions: ‘ She was not, therefore, in our view, unreasonably refusing the offer of alternative employment.’
Hicks QC HHJ
[1993] UKEAT 47 – 92 – 2101
Bailii
Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 83(2)
Cited by:
See Also – Bass Leisure Ltd v Thomas EAT 22-Mar-1993
bas_thomasEAT199303
The court had given one judgment dismissing the employer’s appeal against a finding that the employee had not unreasonably refused a new position and was accordingly redudant. Before the order was drawn up a further point of law was raied and the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Leading Case
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.210385
