Suitable Alternative Employment — Redundancy Rights and Trial Period Process

This is a well-articulated query and raises some serious concerns about how this process has been managed. To address each question directly:
1. Has the redundancy process been correctly handled?
No — not on the face of it. A fundamental principle of redundancy law is that suitable alternative employment must be formally offered and the employee given the opportunity to formally accept or decline. Simply telling you that you are "no longer at risk" without a written offer, without your written acceptance, and without addressing your substantive written challenge does not satisfy that requirement. Your challenge regarding suitability was never properly responded to, which compounds the procedural failing. The employer appears to have bypassed the statutory process entirely.
2. Does the statutory 4-week trial period still apply?
Yes — and arguably more so given the circumstances. Under the Employment Rights Act 1996, where an employee takes up alternative employment that differs from their original role, they are entitled to a statutory 4-week trial period. This exists to protect the employee, not solely the employer. The fact that you have already been asked to carry out activities for the new role before any trial period has formally commenced is itself problematic and could be used to argue the trial period clock has already started without your informed consent.
3. Do the comments about the trial period indicate a misunderstanding?
Yes — clearly. The assertion that the trial period exists solely for the employer to assess the employee is factually incorrect as a matter of law. The statutory trial period under s.138 ERA 1996 exists to protect the employee's right to assess whether the alternative role is genuinely suitable for them, while preserving their right to a redundancy payment if they reasonably conclude it is not. The further assertion that the outcome could not result in a redundancy payment is also incorrect — if you complete the trial period and reasonably refuse the role on grounds of unsuitability, your right to a statutory redundancy payment is preserved.
4. What options are available?
At this stage you have several avenues worth considering. First, put everything in writing immediately — document the timeline, the challenge you raised, the lack of substantive response, the verbal assertions made about the trial period, and the activities you have already been asked to carry out. Second, formally request that the employer clarify in writing the current status of your employment, whether a trial period has begun, and when it commenced. Third, take legal advice without delay — the combination of a procedurally flawed offer process, a misrepresented trial period, and pre-trial work already underway gives you strong grounds to pursue this further. An employment solicitor or ACAS can advise on whether an unfair dismissal or wrongful denial of redundancy payment claim is viable.
With 10 years of service your statutory redundancy entitlement is significant. Do not let procedural pressure from the employer cause you to inadvertently waive rights you are legally entitled to.

This is a well-articulated query and raises some serious concerns about how this process has been managed. To address each question directly:
1. Has the redundancy process been correctly handled?
No — not on the face of it. A fundamental principle of redundancy law is that suitable alternative employment must be formally offered and the employee given the opportunity to formally accept or decline. Simply telling you that you are "no longer at risk" without a written offer, without your written acceptance, and without addressing your substantive written challenge does not satisfy that requirement. Your challenge regarding suitability was never properly responded to, which compounds the procedural failing. The employer appears to have bypassed the statutory process entirely.
2. Does the statutory 4-week trial period still apply?
Yes — and arguably more so given the circumstances. Under the Employment Rights Act 1996, where an employee takes up alternative employment that differs from their original role, they are entitled to a statutory 4-week trial period. This exists to protect the employee, not solely the employer. The fact that you have already been asked to carry out activities for the new role before any trial period has formally commenced is itself problematic and could be used to argue the trial period clock has already started without your informed consent.
3. Do the comments about the trial period indicate a misunderstanding?
Yes — clearly. The assertion that the trial period exists solely for the employer to assess the employee is factually incorrect as a matter of law. The statutory trial period under s.138 ERA 1996 exists to protect the employee's right to assess whether the alternative role is genuinely suitable for them, while preserving their right to a redundancy payment if they reasonably conclude it is not. The further assertion that the outcome could not result in a redundancy payment is also incorrect — if you complete the trial period and reasonably refuse the role on grounds of unsuitability, your right to a statutory redundancy payment is preserved.
4. What options are available?
At this stage you have several avenues worth considering. First, put everything in writing immediately — document the timeline, the challenge you raised, the lack of substantive response, the verbal assertions made about the trial period, and the activities you have already been asked to carry out. Second, formally request that the employer clarify in writing the current status of your employment, whether a trial period has begun, and when it commenced. Third, take legal advice without delay — the combination of a procedurally flawed offer process, a misrepresented trial period, and pre-trial work already underway gives you strong grounds to pursue this further. An employment solicitor or ACAS can advise on whether an unfair dismissal or wrongful denial of redundancy payment claim is viable.
With 10 years of service your statutory redundancy entitlement is significant. Do not let procedural pressure from the employer cause you to inadvertently waive rights you are legally entitled to.