Branch manager with 24 years' service loses redundancy pay after refusing alternative role
A branch manager who refused a suitable alternative role at a nearby office after 24 years' service has lost her claim for a redundancy payment. The tribunal found the offer was suitable and her refusal unreasonable.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #redundancy
- #suitable-alternative-employment
- #unreasonable-refusal
- #branch-manager
- #travel-distance
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a branch manager from 1 January 1998 until 21 June 2022.
- The Stocksbridge office was closing, and the claimant was placed at risk of redundancy on 12 May 2022.
- The respondent offered the claimant a role as Manager Stocksbridge based at the Penistone office with a small salary increase.
- The claimant declined the offer and did not take up the statutory trial period.
- The claimant could work from home on some days and drive to Penistone when the car was available.
- The tribunal found the offer suitable and the refusal unreasonable, dismissing the redundancy payment claim.
Timeline
-
Employment started
The claimant began employment as a branch manager, taking into account a TUPE transfer.
-
At risk of redundancy
The claimant was informed that the Stocksbridge office would close and she was at risk of redundancy.
-
First consultation meeting
The respondent offered the claimant a role at the Penistone office. An offer letter was sent.
-
Second consultation meeting
The claimant had already rejected the offer, and the meeting discussed her decision.
-
Final consultation meeting
The final meeting took place, but the claimant maintained her rejection.
-
Termination letter
The respondent terminated the claimant's employment by reason of redundancy.
-
Employment ended
The claimant's employment ended on or about this date.
-
Hearing
The tribunal heard the case via Cloud Video Platform.
-
Judgment issued
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's redundancy payment claim.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the respondent made a suitable offer of alternative employment and whether the claimant unreasonably refused it, which would determine her entitlement to a redundancy payment under section 141 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's claim for a redundancy payment.
The key reason was that the offer of a role as Manager Stocksbridge based at the Penistone office was suitable: it came with a small salary increase, the same status, and the claimant could work from home on some days. The claimant refused the offer without taking the statutory trial period, and the tribunal found her refusal unreasonable.
No compensation was awarded as the claim was dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you are offered a suitable alternative role during redundancy, you should consider taking the statutory trial period before deciding to refuse it.
- Travel distance and transport options are relevant, but if the new location is reasonably accessible, refusing the offer may be seen as unreasonable.
- Long service does not automatically entitle you to a redundancy payment if you unreasonably turn down a suitable alternative job.
- Working from home arrangements can make an alternative role more suitable, even if you prefer not to work from home.
When refusing a suitable alternative role costs you your redundancy pay
This case shows how important it is to carefully consider any offer of alternative employment when facing redundancy. The claimant, a branch manager with 24 years' service, was offered a similar role at a different office after her Stocksbridge branch closed. The new role came with a small pay rise and the same manager status, and she could work from home on some days. Despite this, she refused the offer without taking the statutory trial period.
The tribunal found that the offer was suitable and her refusal unreasonable. The key factors were that the new location was only a short bus ride away, and the claimant had the flexibility to work from home when transport was an issue. The tribunal noted that the claimant had not explored possible adjustments, such as leaving work earlier to catch the return bus.
What the employer did right
Lancasters Property Services Limited followed a fair process: they held three consultation meetings, made a clear written offer, and explained the trial period. The claimant's rejection was based on personal preferences about travel and working from home, which the tribunal did not consider sufficient grounds to refuse a suitable alternative.
What this means for similar claims
Employees facing redundancy should remember that rejecting a suitable alternative role can mean losing the right to a redundancy payment. The test is whether the offer is suitable and the refusal unreasonable – a personal dislike of the new location or working arrangements is unlikely to be enough. Taking the trial period gives you a chance to see if the role works in practice without losing your statutory rights.
Similar cases
Farm shop worker dismissed after changing her mind about alternative role: unfair dismissal
A farm shop worker with 7 years' service was unfairly dismissed after initially refusing a suitable alternative role but later changing her mind, only to have her employer ignore her change of heart. The tribunal awarded £7,209.50.
Dismissed after maternity leave: fixed-term contract manager wins automatic unfair dismissal claim
A contract manager who was dismissed after returning from maternity leave has been awarded £39,538 after a tribunal found her dismissal was automatically unfair because it was connected to her maternity leave.
Redundancy dismissal upheld: misunderstanding over alternative roles did not make process unfair
A Community Support Service Manager who believed she had been offered alternative roles was fairly dismissed for redundancy after a small charity's consultation process was found to be reasonable. The Exeter tribunal dismissed her claim.
Team leader refused relocation due to childcare costs: redundancy payment upheld
A tribunal awarded a team leader a statutory redundancy payment of £8,065 after she refused a relocation that would have increased her childcare costs, but rejected her sex discrimination claim.