Employers have a legal obligation to consider redeployment as an alternative to dismissal, particularly in redundancy situations or when dealing with employees who have frequent absences due to health issues. This consideration is crucial for ensuring the fairness of any dismissal decision and can significantly impact the outcome of potential unfair dismissal claims.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has consistently emphasised that redeployment should be considered as a matter of course when determining the reasonableness of a dismissal decision. This principle applies even if the employee or their representatives do not explicitly raise the issue of redeployment during the dismissal process.
Case law and precedents
The recent case law of Bugden v Royal Mail Group [2024] highlights the importance of considering redeployment. Mr. Bugden was terminated with notice as a result of the Respondent’s attendance management policy, owing to his frequent and extended absences between 2015 and 2019. The EAT ruled that the Employment Tribunal should have explored redeployment as an alternative to dismissal, even if neither party mentioned it. This decision emphasises that Employment Tribunals should routinely consider whether the employer considered redeployment when assessing the reasonableness of a dismissal.
Implications for disability discrimination
Where an employee is disabled, as defined in the Equality Act 2010, employers have a duty to make reasonable adjustments. Redeployment to an alternative role may be considered a reasonable adjustment in some cases, particularly when an employee is having difficulties carrying out their current role due to a disability.
In Bugden v Royal Mail Group [2024], Mr. Bugden argued that his termination was unjust and that he had experienced disability discrimination. He asserted that the Respondent had failed to provide reasonable accommodations for his disabilities. The EAT, however, concluded that the ET did not err in not considering redeployment as a reasonable adjustment, as neither Mr. Bugden nor his Occupational Health advisor raised this issue before his dismissal or during the hearing. Additionally, the available material did not clearly demonstrate the potential impact of redeployment on Mr. Bugden. Therefore, this part of his appeal was unsuccessful.
Practical steps and guidance for employers
To ensure compliance with legal obligations and best practices, employers should:
Review internal policies to identify any provisions for alternatives to dismissal in certain circumstances.
Consider the range of reasonable responses available and give thorough consideration to the fairness of a dismissal.
Document all considerations and decision-making processes related to redeployment options.
Provide sufficient information about alternative roles to employees, allowing them to make informed decisions.
Implement a redeployment policy or include redeployment provisions within the organisation's redundancy policy.
Proactively consider reasonable adjustments for disabled employees at all stages of employment, including during performance management, capability assessments, and disciplinary procedures.
Consider various alternatives to redundancy, including reducing working hours, offering sabbaticals, or implementing pay cuts, before resorting to dismissal.
Finally, the importance of redeployment consideration extends beyond redundancy situations and applies to dismissals related to capability and frequent absences.
Further reading
ACAS guide to discipline and grievances at work
https://www.acas.org.uk/acas-guide-to-discipline-and-grievances-at-workMr Ian Bugden v The Royal Mail Group Ltd: [2024] EAT 80
https://www.gov.uk/employment-appeal-tribunal-decisions/mr-ian-bugden-v-the-royal-mail-group-ltd-2024-eat-80
This article was generated using HR Advisor, an AI tool designed to assist HR professionals with employment law. If you find the content helpful, please explore HR Advisor and sign up for a free trial to see how it can benefit your HR practices.
