altrnative employment

I would greatly appreciate any opinions on whether my employer has failed to follow the statutory redundancy procedure in relation to seeking suitable alternative employment in my case.
I have been employed as Assistant Store Manager for 4 years. The store branch where I am employed is closing and the Company is undergoing individual consultation with the affected staff. It is one of two branches in the same town. I have learnt that the Store Manager of my store was offered and has accepted the position of Temporary Assistant Store Manager at the other branch. This position did not appear on the Company’s list of vacancies and I was not informed about it in my redundancy consultation meetings. I was clearly suited for the vacant position as I already have several years full time experience in this role.
Is the Company under a legal obligation to give me the same opportunity to apply for the job as was given to the Manager of my store?
I would appreciate opinions on whether the Company has failed to carry out its statutory duties and also whether I might have a wrongful dismissal claim against the Company – perhaps for breach of Trust and Confidence regarding the preferential treatment of my manager.
Is there anything to be gained by raising a formal appeal against my redundancy and/or raising a grievance on grounds of the Company’s failure to consider me for the vacancy in question?
Or, do I allow the redundancy notice period to expire & seek recompense through an Employment Tribunal within 3 months of my dismissal?
Should an employment Tribunal uphold my case for unfair dismissal what is the extent of the award that is likely to be made?

You cannot simply go to a tribunal. If you think something unfair has been done then you must appeal and you must state your reasons for being aggrieved. Without those answers nobody could tell you what your prospects are at tribunal. As for an award - that depends entirely in every circumstance going - we couldn't even begin to guess.

thank you for your opinion. I understand that in the circumstances redundancy might not be considered a fair reason for dismissal irrespective of whether any action is instigated before my employment terminates. The following case law has been brought to my attention:

Parfums Givenchy Ltd v Finch [2010] UKEAT 0517_09_3007 , at para 19-20:

“19. ... the statement of the law set out in Harvey on Industrial Relations and Employment Law at paragraph 1725 in the following terms:

"In Darlington Memorial Hospital NHS Trust v Edwards and Vincent UKEAT/678/95 the EAT has stated that if employees are told to apply for the available jobs then the applications must be considered properly and the exercise carried out in good faith. In Ralph Martindale & Co. Ltd v Harris [2007] ALL ER D 347 the EAT stated that Darlington was some authority for saying that the selection process should at least meet some criteria of fairness and supported the proposition made by the EAT in that case that there may be some duty of care."

20. In those circumstances a selection process which turned down an employee out of bad faith would not be fair. ....”

In Martindale the employer's reorganisation gave rise to a new position. The claimant and one other applied for the position. The Tribunal said:

"15.2 Where two senior employees are at risk of dismissal for redundancy, the fact that they are in different pools may be of some importance: however where, as here, the practical situation is that both are ostensibly capable of carrying out the new role, and whichever is not appointed will be made redundant, such a pooling decision is of minimal importance. Therefore current industrial practice would indicate that the method of selecting which employee will get the new role would involve a reasonable employer in operating a system which was objective and avoided the possibility of a decision which might be seen as capricious or arising out of favouritism for one candidate over another on personal grounds. ...”

I would greatly appreciate any further case law which may be relevant to my case.

Case law is specific to circumstances - it is of no relevance to anything unless the employer has acted in bad faith. You have to appeal your redundancy and/ or raise a grievance asking why the employer acted as they did. Until you have an explanation you are guessing at their motives. As would I be if I spent time looking up case law in a vacuum (which is not something I have time to do anyway). In the first case you were not invited to apply, so they did not turn you down in bad faith - they didn't turn you down at all because you were not invited to apply, so the case law is not relevant. The second may be relevant - but not until you have some evidence as to why they did what they did.