The Claimant was made redundant when a redundancy situation arose during the pandemic. He applied for various jobs with the Respondent, saying that he was willing to work in the sales department, an area in which he had a lot of experience. He was unsuccessful in these applications. The Claimant accepted that a genuine redundancy situation had arisen within the training team; he also accepted that, in terms of selection for redundancy within that team, he was fairly selected for redundancy. His complaint before the ET was that he was not fairly dismissed for redundancy. In particular, he asserted that no adequate, appropriate or fair consideration had been given to the possibility of him continuing to work for the Respondent, albeit in a different role. For that reason, he asserted having regard to section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996; the decision to dismiss him was unfair. The ET agreed, saying the Respondent failed in its obligation to the Claimant in seeking to avoid dismissal as a result. The Claimant did all he could: it is not as if he was waiting for the Respondent to help him. He was as proactive as he could be.

The EAT dismissed the appeal. The Judge’s view was that the reason the Claimant did not secure the other roles was because the Respondent had not properly considered alternative employment. Reading the decision as a whole, the Judge concluded that, had the Claimant not been unfairly blocked and had the Respondent carried out its responsibility in terms of considering alternative employment, he would have secured alternative work.