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.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #redundancy
- #suitable-alternative-employment
- #childcare-costs
- #relocation-policy
- #tupe-transfer
Key facts
- The claimant was employed from 2 January 2008 until 27 August 2021 as a Team Leader.
- Her employment transferred to the respondent on 5 January 2021 under TUPE.
- The respondent proposed a permanent change of workplace from Milton Keynes to Crick.
- The claimant refused the offer of re-engagement due to increased travel and childcare costs.
- The tribunal found the dismissal was by reason of redundancy and the claimant was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment of £8,065.35.
- The sex discrimination claim failed for lack of group disadvantage.
Timeline
-
Employment started
The claimant began continuous employment, later transferring to XPO Logistics.
-
TUPE transfer to XPO Logistics
The claimant's employment transferred from Arrow XL to XPO Logistics following a change in logistics provider for Coca-Cola.
-
Furlough began
The claimant was placed on furlough due to the coronavirus pandemic.
-
Discussions about return to work
Mr Brotherton contacted the claimant's line manager about bringing her back, proposing a permanent move to Crick.
-
Consultation meeting
The claimant met with HR and management to discuss the proposed permanent relocation to Crick.
-
Offer of three days at Crick
The respondent offered the claimant a split schedule: three days at Crick, two days at Milton Keynes, with a salary uplift.
-
Grievance raised
The claimant raised a formal grievance about the proposed change of location.
-
Dismissal and offer of re-engagement
The respondent sent a letter terminating employment and offering re-engagement on new terms, effective from 28 August 2021.
-
Appeal lodged
The claimant appealed the dismissal, citing unfairness and financial hardship.
-
Employment ended
The claimant's employment ended after the notice period, having rejected the offer of re-engagement.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy, whether the offer of re-engagement was suitable alternative employment, and whether the claimant unreasonably refused it.
The outcome
The tribunal decided that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment of £8,065.35. The offer of re-engagement to work three days at Crick and two days at Milton Keynes was not suitable alternative employment because the increased travel and childcare costs made it unreasonable for the claimant to accept. However, the sex discrimination claim failed as the claimant did not show that the relocation requirement disadvantaged women as a group.
- Statutory redundancy payment: £8,065.35
- Preparation time order: £145.00
Lessons & takeaways
- If you are offered alternative employment after redundancy, consider whether the new terms are 'suitable' – tribunals will look at the impact on your personal circumstances, such as childcare costs.
- Refusing an offer of re-engagement may still entitle you to a redundancy payment if the offer is not suitable and your refusal is reasonable.
- To succeed in a sex discrimination claim based on indirect discrimination, you need evidence that the requirement disadvantages your sex as a group, not just you individually.
This case shows the importance of considering personal circumstances when offering alternative employment after redundancy. The claimant, a team leader with 13 years' service, was dismissed after refusing to relocate from Milton Keynes to Crick, which would have increased her travel time and childcare costs. The tribunal found that the offer of re-engagement was not suitable alternative employment because the additional costs made it unreasonable for her to accept.
What the employer could have done differently
XPO Logistics could have considered the claimant's childcare responsibilities more carefully. While they offered a salary uplift, they did not address the practical difficulties of working three days at a different location. A more flexible approach, such as allowing more time to adjust or providing additional support, might have made the offer suitable.
Why this result matters
The decision reinforces that employees who refuse unsuitable alternative employment can still receive a statutory redundancy payment. It also highlights the difficulty of proving indirect sex discrimination based on relocation requirements without statistical evidence of group disadvantage. For employees facing similar situations, it is crucial to document how the proposed changes affect your personal circumstances and to seek legal advice before refusing an offer.
Similar cases
Missed redundancy interview: long-serving project manager loses unfair dismissal claim
A project manager with 10 years' service was fairly dismissed for redundancy after failing to attend a competitive interview. The tribunal rejected claims that his role as an employee representative or his grievances were the real reason.
Business Development Manager dismissed after raising grievance: redundancy or retaliation?
A tribunal found that a Business Development Manager was unfairly dismissed because the real reason was his grievance, not redundancy. The case highlights the risks of dismissing a worker who has raised concerns.
Dismissed by text message during lockdown: a TUPE redundancy that went wrong
A graphic designer with 15 years' service was dismissed by text message during the first lockdown. The tribunal found the dismissal unfair but rejected age discrimination claims.
Cleaner unfairly dismissed after employer went into liquidation
A cleaner was unfairly dismissed when her employer went into liquidation without following any redundancy procedure. The tribunal awarded £14,522 in compensation, reduced by 50% for the chance she would have been dismissed anyway.