What is a 'suitable alternative' in a redundancy situation?

[slotnicki]

Does anyone know how one would define a 'suitable alternative' post in a redundancy situation?

I work in the public sector and we are about to undergo a restructuring. There won't be enough posts to go round at my level. Also I feel that certain colleagues are destined to get these. As it is, 2 of them have already been asked to 'act up' without any recruitment procedure taking place. This gives them a very obvious advantage when the jobs are filled, even if there is a pretence of a competitve procedure.

We have been told that if we are not successul, our employer would wish to avoid redundancy by offering us 'suitable alternative' posts and we would not be entitled to redundancy payments.

Does anyone know how the 'suitable' alternative could be defined. Although my salary would be protected for 2 years, after that, it would go down - could I argue that the alternative was not suitable on the grounds that I would no longer be able to use all my skills and would suffer a loss on income? I've consulted my union, but they don't seem very clear, which is a little worrying!

TIA

same kind of salary/benefits, same location and similar job description - although basically it will depend on the facts of your particular job..

As valentine says - very dependent on facts of each situation but if you think it is not a suitable alternative and can give a reason eg different location, loss of status, future loss of earnings etc then tribunals are inclined to accept the employee's view as to whether the job is really a suitable alternative rather than the employer's view.