The Claimant in this case refused an offer of redeployment during a redundancy exercise and was consequently refused a redundancy payment. The original Tribunal held that the employee’s refusal to redeploy was unreasonable. The Claimant was a Community Modern Matron. She was offered two redeployment posts in community nursing, each of which carried a lower salary and status. Having tried one of these posts for the statutory trial period, the Claimant found that she did not like it and she resigned. The employers did not take issue with her resignation from this position. However, the Claimant also refused a further post which did not involve loss of status or financial loss. This post was, however, hospital-based and the claimant desired a community nursing role, as she had worked in that field since 1985.

In January 2012, the EAT held that, although the employee’s reason might be personal and subjective, it was enough to make her refusal to redeploy reasonable, and she was accordingly entitled to the redundancy payment: "[The] desire not to work in a hospital setting, in the particular circumstances of this Appellant, did provide her with a sound and justifiable reason for turning the offer down."

The Court of Appeal has remitted the case to the Tribunal. Note, however, that in his leading judgment, Pill LJ agreed that much of the EAT's criticism of the Tribunal was well-founded. He indicated that an employee’s decision whether or not to accept alternative work carries a degree of subjectivity, even where the benefit of a redundancy payment might outweigh the benefit of continued employment (in the instant case the employee was considering emigrating): "...a person's desire, if possible, to take advantage of redundancy rights does not necessarily defeat her claim. An employee may be conscious of the benefits of a redundancy payment but still give adequate consideration to a job offer." http://bit.ly/1al7hhO