The Claimant was advised by the Respondent that her role was at risk of redundancy. However, she was "mapped" into a new role, on the basis that there was a difference of not more than 30 per cent between her old role and the new one. The Claimant did not accept that the new role was suitable for her, and she asked the Respondent to confirm that her employment was finishing on grounds of redundancy. When the Respondent refused, the Claimant resigned and brought claims in the ET of unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal and a claim for a redundancy payment. The ET found that the Claimant had been constructively unfairly dismissed, and it made no specific findings in relation to her wrongful dismissal and redundancy payment claims. The Respondent appealed on grounds including that (1) the ET, having found that there was a constructive dismissal, assumed that any constructive dismissal would be unfair, and (2) the ET misdirected itself, misapplied or misinterpreted the law in finding that the Claimant's new role was not a suitable alternative role.

The EAT held that (1) the ET had failed to give proper reasons for its conclusion that this constructive dismissal was unfair, and (2) it appeared that the ET did not direct itself as to the issue to which the suitable alternative employment question was relevant, or to the relevant legal principles. Accordingly, the matter would be remitted to the same ET to consider whether the constructive dismissal, for which the reason was redundancy, was fair in all the circumstances; and it would be determined alongside the claims for wrongful dismissal and for a redundancy payment.