Redundancy is rarely just a structural decision. It is a legal process governed by clear statutory rules and well-developed case law. One of the most important compliance steps in any UK redundancy exercise is the obligation to consider and, where appropriate, offer Suitable Alternative Employment.
Employers who treat alternative roles as an afterthought expose themselves to unnecessary risk. A failure to offer a suitable role can render a redundancy dismissal unfair. In certain protected cases, where the employer fails to offer a suitable and appropriate vacancy to an employee with statutory priority protection, the dismissal may be automatically unfair.
Suitable Alternative Employment is not simply about finding “any job” for an at-risk employee. It requires an objective assessment of role suitability, careful documentation and proper handling of trial periods and refusals. It also requires employers to understand who has priority access to vacancies and when competitive processes are inappropriate.
Employers should treat this topic as part of wider employment law risk management and good workforce planning. In practice, handling Suitable Alternative Employment properly can also help avoid redundancy outcomes where talent can be retained through redeployment.
What this article is about: This guide provides a comprehensive employer-focused explanation of Suitable Alternative Employment in redundancy situations. It explains the legal framework, what makes a role “suitable”, who has priority protection, how to lawfully offer alternative employment, how the statutory four-week trial period works and what happens if the employee refuses the role. The aim is to help employers manage redundancy exercises lawfully, strategically and with reduced tribunal risk.
Section A: What Is Suitable Alternative Employment?
Suitable Alternative Employment refers to a different role offered to an employee who is at risk of redundancy, with the intention of avoiding dismissal. It is a core element of a fair redundancy process under the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Redundancy law does not allow employers to move straight from identifying a reduced requirement for work to issuing dismissal notices. Employers must explore alternatives to redundancy. Redeployment into a suitable vacancy is one of the most important of those alternatives and should be addressed during redundancy consultation, continuing throughout the notice period.
In practice, Suitable Alternative Employment operates at the intersection of three legal principles:
- the duty to act reasonably in redundancy dismissals
- the statutory redundancy pay framework
- enhanced statutory protection for certain categories of employees
A redundancy dismissal may be unfair if the employer fails to consider or offer a suitable alternative role. The existence of a vacancy can fundamentally alter the legal assessment of fairness and, in some protected cases, a failure to offer a suitable and appropriate vacancy can expose the employer to automatic unfair dismissal risk.
1. The legal framework
The statutory mechanics of Suitable Alternative Employment are primarily found in sections 138 to 141 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. These provisions deal with renewal and re-engagement in redundancy situations, the statutory four-week trial period, the consequences of refusing suitable alternative employment and the impact on entitlement to statutory redundancy pay.
In addition, broader unfair dismissal principles require employers to demonstrate that dismissal was a last resort. Tribunals will examine whether the employer genuinely considered alternatives before terminating employment, including whether consultation was meaningful, whether the employer used fair redundancy selection criteria and whether suitable vacancies were identified and offered in a timely way.
It is important to understand that the obligation to consider alternative employment is part of a fair process generally. It is not limited to employees with two years’ service. While two years’ service is usually required to claim ordinary unfair dismissal and to qualify for statutory redundancy pay, procedural fairness remains a key risk area, particularly where discrimination or automatic unfair dismissal issues arise.
2. When must employers consider alternative roles?
The duty to consider Suitable Alternative Employment arises during the consultation stage and continues until termination. Employers should identify vacancies at the start of consultation, continue monitoring vacancies throughout consultation and notice periods and consider vacancies across the organisation. Where redeployment across an associated employer or group company is realistic, routinely undertaken, or part of established practice, employers should also consider vacancies across those entities.
The assessment must be genuine. Tribunals are alert to situations where employers nominally “considered” alternatives but failed to carry out a structured vacancy review. This is particularly important where the redundancy exercise triggers collective consultation obligations, as employers will need consistent evidence of their process and decision-making.
If a suitable vacancy exists and is not offered, the dismissal may be unfair. Where enhanced statutory protections apply, a failure to offer a suitable and appropriate vacancy to the protected employee may result in automatic unfair dismissal, because the employer has breached the statutory priority obligation, not merely because a vacancy existed.
3. The relationship with statutory redundancy pay
Suitable Alternative Employment also affects entitlement to redundancy pay. If an employee unreasonably refuses a suitable alternative role, they may lose their right to statutory redundancy pay. However, if the refusal is reasonable, statutory redundancy pay remains payable (assuming eligibility).
Employers should be clear that suitability has two dimensions: whether the role is objectively suitable and whether the employee’s refusal is reasonable in light of their personal circumstances. This distinction becomes particularly important where disputes arise, especially if the employer is considering withholding redundancy pay or where wider issues (including the tax treatment of redundancy pay) are being discussed as part of exit planning.
Section A summary: Suitable Alternative Employment is a fundamental safeguard within UK redundancy law. Employers must actively consider and, where appropriate, offer suitable vacancies before dismissing an employee for redundancy. The obligation applies as part of a fair process and directly affects both unfair dismissal risk and statutory redundancy pay entitlement.
Section B: What Makes a Role “Suitable” Alternative Employment?
Determining whether a role qualifies as Suitable Alternative Employment is rarely straightforward. Suitability is not defined by a single statutory checklist. Instead, it is assessed by reference to the overall similarity between the old and new roles and the practical impact on the employee.
Tribunals assess suitability objectively first. They then consider whether any refusal by the employee was reasonable in their particular circumstances. Employers must therefore analyse both the characteristics of the job and the position of the individual employee.
A structured, documented assessment of suitability is one of the strongest forms of protection in a redundancy dispute.
1. Objective suitability: comparing the two roles
Objective suitability involves comparing the redundant role with the proposed alternative across several factors.
Pay and benefits
A role is more likely to be suitable where pay, bonus potential and benefits are broadly comparable.
A significant reduction in salary, loss of contractual bonus or removal of substantial benefits may render the role unsuitable. Minor differences, however, will not automatically make a role unsuitable. The question is whether the differences are materially detrimental.
Employers should also consider overtime arrangements, commission structures, car allowances, pension contributions and health or insurance benefits. Where pay is reduced but the employee’s total remuneration remains broadly similar, suitability may still be established. Clear explanation and written comparison are advisable.
Duties and responsibilities
The new role should align with the employee’s skills, qualifications and experience.
A role requiring completely different competencies, or one that represents a marked demotion in status, may be unsuitable. However, a role that involves overlapping responsibilities or uses transferable skills may well be suitable, even if it sits in a different department.
Employers should examine seniority level, reporting lines, decision-making authority, professional standing and client or stakeholder exposure.
It is important to assess the employee’s actual duties in practice, not just their contractual job title. Roles evolve over time, and tribunals look at substance over labels.
Location
Geographical location is frequently a decisive factor.
A move within a reasonable commuting distance may not affect suitability. A relocation that significantly increases travel time or costs, or requires relocation of home, may render the role unsuitable.
The presence of a mobility clause does not automatically make relocation suitable. Tribunals assess whether reliance on the clause is reasonable in the circumstances.
Employers should document current commute time and cost, proposed commute time and cost and the practical impact on the employee.
Hours and working patterns
Changes in working hours, shift patterns or flexibility can affect suitability. Moving from day shifts to night shifts, increasing weekly hours, removing remote working arrangements or reducing flexibility relied upon for caring responsibilities may all affect whether a role is suitable.
Where working patterns materially change, suitability must be carefully analysed.
Contract type and job security
A permanent role replacing a permanent role is usually easier to defend as suitable.
If the alternative role is fixed-term, temporary or more precarious, suitability becomes more questionable.
Continuity of employment should normally be preserved in a genuine alternative role. If continuity is broken, that is a strong indicator that the arrangement may not constitute suitable alternative employment in the statutory sense.
2. Associated employers and group companies
Suitable Alternative Employment is not limited to vacancies within the employee’s immediate department.
Employers should consider roles within the wider organisation. Where redeployment across an associated employer or group company is realistic, routinely undertaken, or part of established practice, employers should also consider vacancies across those entities.
3. Employee reasonableness: the second stage of the analysis
Even if a role is objectively suitable, an employee may still reasonably refuse it. This is a distinct legal question.
Tribunals assess whether the employee acted reasonably in refusing the role, taking into account their personal circumstances.
Relevant factors include caring responsibilities, health conditions, length of commute, childcare arrangements, personal financial commitments and impact on work-life balance.
Two employees offered the same alternative role may lawfully reach different conclusions about reasonableness. Suitability is objective; refusal reasonableness is personal.
If an employee unreasonably refuses a suitable alternative role, they may lose their entitlement to statutory redundancy pay. However, the burden of proving unreasonable refusal rests on the employer.
4. Common employer errors when assessing suitability
Tribunal cases frequently reveal the same weaknesses in redundancy processes. Employers may assume a role is suitable without structured comparison, treat demotion as automatically acceptable, over-rely on mobility clauses, fail to consider the employee’s actual circumstances or fail to record the reasoning behind suitability decisions.
A brief, documented comparison of old and new roles is often decisive evidence in defending claims.
Section B summary: A role will qualify as Suitable Alternative Employment where it is broadly comparable in pay, duties, status, location, hours and security. Employers must assess suitability objectively and separately evaluate whether any refusal was reasonable in the employee’s personal circumstances. Proper documentation of this assessment significantly reduces unfair dismissal and redundancy pay disputes.
Section C: Who Has Priority for Suitable Alternative Vacancies?
While all employees at risk of redundancy must be considered for Suitable Alternative Employment, certain employees benefit from enhanced statutory protection. In these cases, the law does not merely require consideration of alternative roles. It requires priority treatment.
Employers who misunderstand or dilute this protection expose themselves to automatic unfair dismissal claims, where compensation is uncapped and qualifying service is irrelevant.
Understanding who has priority and how that priority operates is critical to a legally compliant redundancy exercise.
1. The redundancy protected period
Enhanced redundancy protection applies to employees who fall within a defined statutory “protected period”. This includes employees who are pregnant (from the point they notify the employer of pregnancy), on maternity leave, returning from maternity leave within the protected timeframe, on adoption leave, on shared parental leave in qualifying circumstances and on neonatal care leave where applicable.
In pregnancy and maternity cases, protection can extend beyond the period of leave itself into a defined post-return period, and employers should avoid relying on assumptions or informal cut-offs when identifying who is protected.
This means that during a redundancy process, employers must actively identify whether any at-risk employee is within the protected period before allocating vacancies.
2. What does “priority” mean in practice?
Where a suitable and appropriate vacancy exists and an employee is within the redundancy protected period, the employer must offer that role to the protected employee.
This is not a right to be interviewed. It is not a right to compete. It is not simply a right to be considered. It is a right to be offered the role ahead of others.
If the employer fails to offer a suitable and appropriate vacancy to a protected employee and instead requires them to apply competitively, appoints a non-protected employee to the role, or withholds the vacancy entirely, the dismissal may be automatically unfair.
Automatic unfair dismissal does not require two years’ service. Compensation is not capped in the same way as ordinary unfair dismissal.
3. What if there are multiple protected employees?
This is a complex area and one that requires careful handling.
If more than one protected employee is eligible for the same suitable and appropriate vacancy, the employer must still act fairly and objectively. The law does not provide a mechanical formula for allocation between protected employees.
In these situations, employers should identify which employees fall within the protected period, assess whether the role is suitable and appropriate for each, document the rationale for any allocation decision and avoid indirect discrimination or subjective decision-making.
The key is transparency and evidence-based reasoning. Arbitrary decisions significantly increase litigation risk.
4. Interaction with selection pools
Enhanced protection does not mean that protected employees cannot be selected for redundancy. It means that if redundancy is unavoidable and a suitable and appropriate vacancy exists, that vacancy must be offered to them.
Employers must therefore distinguish between fair selection into a redundancy pool and the obligation to offer a suitable and appropriate vacancy if one exists. Confusing these stages is a common legal error and will often undermine reliance on redundancy selection criteria if vacancy handling later contradicts the priority obligation.
5. Risk areas for employers
Common mistakes include forgetting to check pregnancy status during consultation, treating maternity returners the same as all other employees, running competitive interviews for ringfenced vacancies and assuming that best candidate selection overrides priority protection.
Tribunals are alert to cosmetic compliance. A vacancy must genuinely be offered, not merely discussed.
Employers should treat priority protection issues as part of wider employment law compliance and as a key risk area for claims including maternity discrimination, particularly in scenarios involving redundancy during maternity leave or where the practical question arises as to whether an employer can make someone redundant on maternity leave.
Section C summary: Employees within the statutory redundancy protected period have priority access to suitable and appropriate vacancies. Where such a role exists, it must be offered to them ahead of others. Failure to comply may result in automatic unfair dismissal. Employers must proactively identify protected employees and document vacancy allocation decisions carefully.
Section D: How to Offer Suitable Alternative Employment Lawfully
Identifying a suitable vacancy is only part of the compliance exercise. The way in which the role is offered is equally important. Poor communication, vague terms or procedural shortcuts frequently undermine otherwise defensible redundancy decisions.
A lawful offer of Suitable Alternative Employment must be clear, timely and evidenced. Employers should approach this stage with the same level of care as the redundancy process itself.
1. Identifying vacancies properly
Employers should conduct a structured vacancy search across the affected department and the wider organisation. Where redeployment across an associated employer or group company is realistic, routinely undertaken, or part of established practice, employers should also consider vacancies across those entities.
Vacancy searches should not be a one-off exercise. They should be repeated throughout redundancy consultation and notice periods. Roles that arise late in the process may still need to be offered if they are suitable and appropriate.
Documentation is critical. Employers should retain vacancy lists reviewed, dates of review and reasons for concluding roles were or were not suitable and appropriate.
Tribunals often ask for evidence that the vacancy search was genuine and ongoing. This becomes even more important where the redundancy exercise triggers collective consultation obligations, because employers will need consistency between what is said during consultation and what the vacancy evidence shows.
2. Offer vs invitation to apply
A common legal mistake is asking the employee to “apply” for a role rather than making a formal offer.
In general redundancy cases, requiring an application process may not automatically be unlawful, provided the process is fair. However, it increases risk and can undermine arguments that the employer genuinely sought to avoid redundancy by redeployment.
In redundancy protected cases (pregnancy and family leave), competitive application processes for suitable and appropriate vacancies are particularly dangerous. Where protection applies, the role should be offered, not competed for.
Best practice is to make a clear written offer setting out that the role is being offered as suitable alternative employment, that it is proposed as an alternative to redundancy and the key terms and start date. This reduces ambiguity and evidential disputes.
3. Providing sufficient information
Employees must be given enough information to make an informed decision.
The offer should include job title, main duties and reporting structure, location, hours and working pattern, salary and benefits, start date, any differences from the current role and confirmation of continuity of employment.
Where multiple vacancies are offered, sufficient information must be provided about each role to allow meaningful comparison. Incomplete or vague offers can later be characterised as inadequate or unreasonable.
4. Timing of the offer
To qualify as suitable alternative employment under the statutory framework, the offer must be made before the existing contract ends and the new role must begin immediately after the old role ends, or within the statutory window.
Delays can jeopardise the statutory mechanism and may entitle the employee to redundancy pay even if redeployed.
Employers should avoid making informal or last-minute offers. Structured timing aligned with consultation stages and the notice period is safer.
5. The statutory four-week trial period
Where the alternative role differs from the employee’s existing role, the employee is entitled to a statutory four-week trial period.
Key points are that the trial period begins when the old contract ends, it lasts four consecutive weeks and it allows the employee to assess suitability.
If the employee decides during the trial period that the role is unsuitable and notifies the employer before the end of the period, they may still qualify for statutory redundancy pay, subject to eligibility.
Extension for retraining
The four-week period can be extended for retraining purposes, but the extension must be agreed in writing and the agreement must be made before the original trial period expires. The extension should specify its duration.
The trial period cannot be informally prolonged without proper written agreement. Employers who fail to document extensions risk disputes over entitlement.
6. Acceptance of the role
If the employee accepts the alternative role and does not reject it during the trial period, they are treated as not having been dismissed for redundancy, statutory redundancy pay is not payable and continuity of employment is preserved.
While a completely new contract is not always legally required, employers should issue clear written confirmation of any contractual variations to avoid future disputes.
7. Record-keeping and evidence
A defensible process requires written vacancy assessments, copies of formal offers, notes of discussions, confirmation of trial period terms and written confirmation of acceptance or refusal.
Redundancy disputes often turn on documentary evidence. Employers who cannot demonstrate what was offered and when are at a significant disadvantage.
Section D summary: Offering Suitable Alternative Employment lawfully requires more than identifying a vacancy. Employers must conduct a structured vacancy search, make a clear written offer, provide sufficient information and correctly manage the statutory four-week trial period. Proper documentation is essential to defend against unfair dismissal and redundancy pay claims.
Section E: What Happens If the Employee Refuses Suitable Alternative Employment?
A refusal of Suitable Alternative Employment is one of the most common flashpoints in redundancy disputes. Employers often assume that if a role is suitable, the employee must accept it. That is not the legal position.
The law distinguishes between whether the role was objectively suitable and whether the employee’s refusal was reasonable in their particular circumstances. This two-stage analysis determines whether statutory redundancy pay remains payable and whether dismissal risks arise.
1. Reasonable refusal
Even where a role appears objectively suitable, an employee may reasonably refuse it.
Tribunals assess reasonableness by reference to the employee’s individual circumstances. Relevant factors include significant increase in travel time or cost, caring responsibilities including childcare arrangements, health issues or disability, substantial reduction in pay or benefits, material change in working hours or shift patterns, impact on work-life balance and loss of status or professional standing.
The assessment is not purely contractual. It is contextual and fact-sensitive.
Two employees offered the same alternative role may lawfully reach different conclusions. One may reasonably accept; the other may reasonably refuse.
If the refusal is reasonable, the employee remains entitled to statutory redundancy pay, provided they otherwise qualify.
2. Unreasonable refusal
If an employee unreasonably refuses suitable alternative employment, they may lose their entitlement to statutory redundancy pay.
The burden of proof rests with the employer. It is not enough to assert that the role was similar. The employer must demonstrate that the role was objectively suitable and that the employee’s refusal was unreasonable in light of the circumstances.
Unreasonable refusal might arise where the new role is substantially similar in pay, duties and location, the employee provides no substantive reason for refusal, or the refusal is based on preference rather than material disadvantage. However, tribununals are cautious in finding refusal unreasonable where there are genuine personal or practical difficulties.
3. Refusal during the trial period
Where an employee accepts a role subject to the statutory four-week trial period, they may still reject it within that period if it proves unsuitable.
To preserve redundancy pay rights, the employee must notify the employer before the trial period expires and the refusal must be reasonable in the circumstances.
If the employee allows the trial period to lapse without raising objection, they will normally be treated as having accepted the role.
Employers should confirm trial period dates clearly in writing and diarise the expiry date.
4. Disputes and tribunal risk
Disputes about refusal often lead to internal grievances, ACAS Early Conciliation and claims for statutory redundancy pay and unfair dismissal.
Where enhanced redundancy protection applies, failure to offer a suitable and appropriate vacancy may lead to automatic unfair dismissal claims regardless of redundancy pay entitlement. Employers should treat this as a distinct risk area from ordinary unfair dismissal.
Employers who rely on unreasonable refusal arguments should ensure that their documentation clearly sets out why the role was suitable, the reasons provided by the employee and why those reasons were considered unreasonable. Without contemporaneous documentation, such arguments are difficult to defend.
5. Strategic considerations for employers
From a risk management perspective, employers should engage in open dialogue before treating a refusal as final, explore whether adjustments to the role could address concerns, avoid confrontational language suggesting misconduct and obtain legal advice before withholding statutory redundancy pay in contentious cases.
Redundancy disputes frequently escalate due to communication failures rather than legal necessity. In more complex exits, employers may also consider whether a redundancy settlement agreement is appropriate as part of a wider risk-managed approach, particularly if dispute risk is increasing.
Section E summary: An employee can refuse Suitable Alternative Employment. If the refusal is reasonable, statutory redundancy pay remains payable. If it is unreasonable, redundancy pay may be lost. The employer carries the burden of proof and must carefully document both suitability and reasonableness to reduce tribunal risk.
Section F: Employer Compliance Checklist and Best Practice Strategy
Suitable Alternative Employment is one of the most litigated aspects of redundancy law. Many unfair dismissal and redundancy pay claims do not arise because employers failed to identify a vacancy, but because they failed to manage the process correctly.
A structured compliance approach reduces risk, improves decision quality and protects the organisation if a tribunal claim arises.
1. Conduct a structured vacancy audit
Before confirming redundancy dismissals, employers should carry out a documented vacancy review.
This should include current vacancies across all departments, roles due to become vacant during consultation, fixed-term roles ending soon and, where redeployment across an associated employer or group company is realistic, routinely undertaken, or part of established practice, vacancies across those entities.
The review should not be static. Employers should revisit vacancy searches throughout consultation and notice periods.
Documenting the date, scope and outcome of each review provides critical evidential protection.
2. Identify employees with priority protection early
At the start of any redundancy process, employers should identify whether any affected employees fall within the statutory redundancy protected period.
This includes employees who are pregnant, on maternity leave, returning from maternity leave within the protected timeframe, on adoption leave, on qualifying shared parental leave and on neonatal care leave.
Failure to identify protected employees early can lead to unlawful vacancy allocation later in the process. Priority status must be factored into vacancy decisions before roles are offered to others.
Employers should also recognise that statutory protections can create heightened risk of claims including maternity discrimination, particularly where decisions about vacancy offers or start dates disadvantage protected employees.
3. Compare roles systematically
Employers should avoid informal or instinctive judgments about suitability.
A structured comparison document should record role title comparison, pay comparison, benefits comparison, location comparison, hours comparison, duties and seniority comparison and contract type and job security.
Where differences exist, the employer should record why those differences do not render the role unsuitable or inappropriate.
4. Make clear, written offers
A lawful and defensible offer of Suitable Alternative Employment should confirm the role is being offered as an alternative to redundancy, set out key contractual terms, state the proposed start date, confirm whether the statutory four-week trial period applies and explain the consequences of acceptance or refusal.
Ambiguous or informal offers create avoidable disputes.
5. Manage the trial period carefully
Where a statutory trial period applies, employers should confirm the start and end dates in writing, specify any agreed retraining extension in writing before the original period expires, diary the end date and confirm in writing whether the role has been accepted or rejected.
Unclear trial period handling frequently leads to arguments about entitlement to redundancy pay.
6. Handle refusals with caution
Before treating a refusal as unreasonable, employers should invite the employee to explain their concerns in writing, consider whether adjustments are possible and record the reasoning behind any conclusion that refusal is unreasonable.
Withholding statutory redundancy pay should not be done lightly. Where doubt exists, legal advice is recommended.
7. Align company policies with the statutory position
Employers offering enhanced redundancy pay should ensure that their internal redundancy policy reflects the statutory rules on suitable alternative employment, clarifies the effect of unreasonable refusal and does not inadvertently create broader contractual obligations.
Policies that conflict with statutory principles can undermine defence arguments, and employers should also consider the practical position on how redundancy pay is taxed when communicating about payments in exit documentation.
8. Maintain consistency and transparency
Redundancy processes are often scrutinised for fairness across the workforce.
Employers should ensure consistent communication, transparent vacancy allocation, objective documentation and equal treatment outside protected categories. Inconsistent handling between employees can give rise to discrimination claims in addition to unfair dismissal claims.
Section F summary: A compliant Suitable Alternative Employment process requires structured vacancy audits, early identification of protected employees, systematic role comparison, clear written offers and careful management of trial periods and refusals. Proper documentation is the employer’s primary safeguard in tribunal proceedings.
FAQs
1. What is suitable alternative employment in redundancy?
Suitable alternative employment is a different role offered to an employee who is at risk of redundancy, with the aim of avoiding dismissal. The role should be broadly comparable in terms of pay, duties, status, location and working conditions.
2. Does an employer have to offer a suitable alternative role?
Where a suitable alternative role exists, a reasonable employer should normally offer it as part of a fair redundancy process. Failure to do so may render the dismissal unfair.
If the employee is within the statutory redundancy protected period, and a suitable and appropriate vacancy exists, that vacancy must be offered to them in priority. Failure to comply may result in automatic unfair dismissal.
3. Who has priority for suitable alternative vacancies?
Employees within the redundancy protected period have priority access to suitable and appropriate vacancies. This includes employees who are pregnant from notification, on maternity leave, returning from maternity leave within the protected timeframe, on adoption leave, on qualifying shared parental leave and on neonatal care leave.
4. What makes a role legally “suitable”?
Suitability is assessed by comparing the existing and proposed roles. Relevant factors include salary and benefits, duties and seniority, location and travel requirements, working hours and flexibility and contract type and job security. The assessment is objective, but any refusal must then be evaluated against the employee’s personal circumstances.
5. Do employees have to apply for suitable alternative roles?
In general redundancy situations, employers may use internal processes, but requiring an employee to apply can increase legal risk if it undermines the aim of avoiding dismissal. For employees within the redundancy protected period, suitable and appropriate vacancies should be offered directly rather than treated as a competitive recruitment exercise.
6. Is there a four-week trial period?
Yes. Where the alternative role differs from the employee’s existing role, the employee is entitled to a statutory four-week trial period. The trial begins when the original contract ends and allows the employee to assess whether the alternative role is suitable.
7. Can the trial period be extended?
The four-week period can be extended for retraining purposes, but only if the extension is agreed in writing and the agreement is made before the original trial period expires. Informal extensions are not sufficient.
8. Can an employee refuse suitable alternative employment and still receive redundancy pay?
Yes, if the refusal is reasonable. If an employee reasonably refuses a suitable alternative role, they remain entitled to statutory redundancy pay, subject to eligibility. If the refusal is unreasonable, statutory redundancy pay may be lost. The employer must prove that the refusal was unreasonable.
9. How is “reasonable refusal” assessed?
Reasonableness depends on the employee’s circumstances. Relevant considerations include travel distance and cost, caring responsibilities, health conditions, reduction in pay or status and changes in working patterns. Tribunals assess reasonableness on a case-by-case basis.
10. Does a mobility clause make relocation suitable?
Not automatically. A mobility clause may support the employer’s position, but tribunals assess whether reliance on the clause is reasonable in the circumstances. A significant relocation may still render a role unsuitable despite a contractual mobility provision.
Conclusion
Suitable Alternative Employment is not an administrative formality within redundancy law. It is a central safeguard designed to ensure dismissal is genuinely a last resort.
Employers who fail to identify and offer suitable and appropriate vacancies risk unfair dismissal findings, statutory redundancy pay disputes and, in protected cases, automatic unfair dismissal claims. Legal exposure is compounded where documentation is weak or where competitive recruitment processes are used in circumstances requiring priority offers.
A compliant approach requires early and ongoing vacancy audits, identification of employees within the redundancy protected period, structured comparison of old and new roles, clear written offers with sufficient detail, proper management of the statutory four-week trial period and careful, evidence-based handling of refusals.
When managed properly, Suitable Alternative Employment can reduce litigation risk, preserve organisational knowledge and demonstrate responsible workforce management. When handled casually, it is one of the fastest routes to tribunal proceedings.
Redundancy exercises should therefore treat alternative employment not as a secondary consideration, but as a core compliance step embedded within the consultation process.
Glossary
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| Associated Employer | A related company within the same corporate group that may be relevant when identifying suitable alternative vacancies, where redeployment across entities is realistic, routinely undertaken, or part of established practice. |
| Automatic Unfair Dismissal | A category of dismissal where no qualifying service is required and compensation is not subject to the ordinary statutory cap. In redundancy contexts, this can arise where statutory priority protections are breached, including failures to offer a suitable and appropriate vacancy to a protected employee. |
| Continuity of Employment | The preservation of an employee’s continuous service when moving into suitable alternative employment, where statutory renewal or re-engagement provisions apply. |
| Employment Rights Act 1996 | The primary UK legislation governing redundancy, unfair dismissal and statutory redundancy pay, including the trial period and redundancy pay implications of alternative employment offers. |
| Redundancy | A dismissal arising from a reduced requirement for employees to carry out work of a particular kind, or where a workplace is closing, subject to statutory rules on fair procedure. |
| Redundancy Protected Period | The statutory period during which certain employees, including those pregnant or on qualifying family leave, have priority access to suitable and appropriate vacancies in a redundancy situation. |
| Statutory Redundancy Pay | Compensation payable to eligible employees, typically requiring two years’ continuous service, where employment ends by reason of redundancy and no disqualifying refusal of suitable alternative employment applies. |
| Suitable Alternative Employment | A different role offered to an employee at risk of redundancy that is broadly comparable in pay, duties, status, location and working conditions and is intended to avoid dismissal. |
| Trial Period | The statutory four-week period allowing an employee to assess whether an alternative role is suitable, with limited scope for written retraining extensions agreed before expiry. |
| Unfair Dismissal | A dismissal that is not fair in reason or procedure under UK employment law, including failures to properly consider or offer suitable alternative employment during redundancy. |
Useful Links
| Resource | Link | Why it’s useful |
|---|---|---|
| GOV.UK: Redundancy – Suitable alternative employment | https://www.gov.uk/redundancy-your-rights/suitable-alternative-employment | Official guidance on suitable alternative employment, trial periods and redundancy pay consequences. |
| GOV.UK: Staff redundancies | https://www.gov.uk/staff-redundant | Overview of employer obligations during redundancy, including consultation and alternatives to dismissal. |
| Legislation.gov.uk: Employment Rights Act 1996 | https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/18/contents | Primary legislation governing redundancy, unfair dismissal and the trial period rules (including sections 138–141). |
| ACAS: Offer alternative employment | https://www.acas.org.uk/manage-staff-redundancies/offer-alternative-employment | Practical employer guidance on identifying and offering suitable alternative roles. |
| ACAS: Taking another job with your employer during redundancy | https://www.acas.org.uk/your-rights-during-redundancy/taking-another-job-with-your-employer | Explains suitability, refusal and trial period rules from a redundancy pay perspective. |
| ACAS: Redundancy protection for pregnancy and new parents | https://www.acas.org.uk/redundancy-protection-for-pregnancy-and-new-parents | Explains priority redundancy protections for employees who are pregnant or on qualifying family leave. |
| CIPD: Redundancy factsheet | https://www.cipd.co.uk/knowledge/fundamentals/emp-law/redundancy/factsheet | Employer-focused HR best practice guidance on redundancy management. |
| Citizens Advice: Redundancy pay | https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/work/leaving-a-job/redundancy/redundancy-pay/ | Plain-English explanation of redundancy pay eligibility and calculation. |
