Alternative work

Case 2: The facts

Mr Loosley was employed by a charity with local authority funding. When the funding ended (later than expected), he was made redundant.

After the expected withdrawal of funds, the organisation took on another worker, who was preferred by the local authority. But before Loosely’s redundancy took effect, alternative work became available; the authority told the new employee about this, but did not tell Loosley.

A tribunal found that Loosley should have been told about the role but that he was unlikely to have got it, given that the authority wanted the other worker to have it.

The ruling

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) upheld the tribunal’s decision that Loosley was fairly dismissed. The failure to tell him of the vacancy was a procedural error – but, as he would have been dismissed anyway, it did not make the dismissal unfair under section 98A of the Employment Rights Act. Neither was the dismissal unfair generally under section 98. In most cases, the EAT said, a failure to notify an employee of an alternative job which s/he is able to do would be unfair, but this was an exception where dismissal was fair in the circumstances.

Loosley v Social Action for Health UKEAT/0378/06