1. Introduction

Trial roles during redeployment arise when an employer seeks to move an employee from an existing position into an alternative role because of redundancy, organisational restructuring, automation, business closure, reduced staffing requirements, or other operational changes.

A trial period allows an employee to assess whether a proposed alternative position is suitable before accepting it permanently. It also gives the employer an opportunity to determine whether the employee can perform the duties of the new role with reasonable training and support.

Redeployment is particularly important where an employee's existing position is disappearing but suitable alternative work may be available within the organisation. A trial arrangement can reduce involuntary job losses, preserve employment relationships, and help employers comply with applicable redundancy and dismissal laws.

However, the legal consequences depend on the jurisdiction, the employee's contract, applicable collective agreements, and the reason for redeployment. There is no universal rule that every redeployment must include a trial period or that every trial automatically protects an employee from dismissal.

2. Meaning and Scope of Trial Roles During Redeployment

A trial role is a temporary arrangement in which an employee performs the duties of an alternative position to determine whether the role is suitable for both parties.

Common circumstances include:

Redundancy: The employee's existing position is eliminated, but another position may be available.

Restructuring: Duties are reorganised across departments, requiring employees to move into different roles.

Technological change: Automation or new software makes the existing position unnecessary, while other jobs require different skills.

Medical or disability-related redeployment: An employee may need alternative duties or workplace adjustments, subject to applicable disability and employment laws.

Return-to-work arrangements: An employee may be offered modified duties following an absence, depending on the relevant legal framework.

Internal mobility: An employer may use a trial assignment to evaluate whether an employee can successfully transition into another department.

A trial role should be distinguished from an ordinary probationary period. A probationary period generally concerns a new appointment or a newly established employment relationship. A redeployment trial, by contrast, often evaluates the suitability of an alternative role for an existing employee whose original job may be disappearing.

3. Legal Framework Governing Trial Roles

A. Suitability of alternative employment

Employers should assess whether the alternative position is appropriate in light of the employee's qualifications, experience, skills, remuneration, status, working hours, location, responsibilities, and personal circumstances.

A role should not be treated as suitable merely because a vacancy exists. A substantial reduction in pay, an unreasonable change of location, significantly different responsibilities, or a requirement for skills the employee cannot reasonably acquire may affect suitability.

B. Clear trial-period terms

Before the trial begins, the employer should communicate its duration, duties, performance standards, reporting arrangements, training requirements, pay, benefits, and the process for deciding whether the placement will become permanent.

Where statutory rules apply, the trial period must satisfy those requirements. An employer cannot necessarily avoid redundancy protections by describing an ordinary transfer as a trial.

C. Continuity of employment

A redeployment trial does not automatically terminate the original employment relationship. The effect on continuity depends on the applicable law and the terms of the arrangement.

Employers should specify whether the employee retains existing contractual rights and what will happen if either party concludes that the new role is unsuitable.

D. Pay and benefits

The employee's pay during the trial should be determined by the applicable contract, statutory requirements, and any binding workplace policy or collective agreement. Employers should not assume that a trial permits them to reduce wages or withdraw benefits unlawfully.

E. Non-discrimination and reasonable adjustments

Selection for trial roles must comply with relevant discrimination legislation. Decisions should be based on legitimate role requirements rather than protected characteristics, stereotypes, or assumptions about an employee's abilities.

Where disability-related duties apply, reasonable adjustments may be necessary before concluding that an employee cannot perform the role.

4. Important Case Laws on Trial Roles During Redeployment

The following decisions are particularly relevant to UK employment law. They address statutory trial periods, suitable alternative employment, disability-related redeployment, and the fairness of dismissal.

1. East London NHS Foundation Trust v O'Connor [2019] UKEAT 0113/19

Legal principle: Suitability of alternative employment and the consequences of a trial period

The employee's existing role was deleted, and he was offered a trial period in a Care Coordinator position. A dispute arose over whether the alternative role was suitable and what the consequences of the trial's conclusion should be.

The case illustrates the importance of establishing when a trial period ends, whether the alternative role is suitable, and what employment consequences follow if the employee and employer disagree about suitability.

Significance: Employers should document the trial's commencement and end dates, record their assessment of suitability, and explain the consequences of accepting or rejecting the alternative position. The case also demonstrates the risks of treating a trial arrangement as having automatically ended the employment relationship without properly considering the surrounding facts.

2. Optical Express Ltd v Williams [2007] UKEAT 0036/07

Legal principle: Compliance with statutory trial-period requirements

This case concerned an employee who accepted alternative employment with reservations but did not give the required notice within the statutory 28-day period.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal considered the interaction between a purported common-law trial arrangement and the statutory requirements governing trial periods in redundancy situations.

The decision demonstrates that an employer and employee cannot necessarily rely on an informal or common-law trial arrangement to obtain the statutory consequences associated with a valid trial period.

Significance: Employers and employees should comply with the statutory time limits and notice requirements. If an employee believes the new role is unsuitable, the employee should communicate that conclusion promptly and in the manner required by the applicable legislation.

3. Rentokil Initial UK Ltd v Miller [2024] EAT 37

Legal principle: A trial period can be a reasonable adjustment for a disabled employee

The employee could no longer perform his physically demanding role because of multiple sclerosis. He applied for office-based positions but performed poorly in interviews and assessments.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that a trial placement in a suitable alternative role can, in appropriate circumstances, constitute a reasonable adjustment under the Equality Act 2010. The employer cannot automatically refuse a trial simply because the employee has not demonstrated a high likelihood of succeeding in the new role.

The Tribunal had found that a four-week trial in a service administrator position would have been a reasonable adjustment on the facts.

Significance: Where disability makes an employee's existing role unsuitable, employers should assess whether a trial, training, or workplace adjustment could enable the employee to perform an alternative role. A failed interview or test is relevant, but it does not necessarily settle the question.

4. Archibald v Fife Council [2004] UKHL 32

Legal principle: Redeployment may require preferential treatment as a reasonable adjustment

The House of Lords considered the position of a disabled employee who could no longer perform her existing job. The decision established that reasonable adjustments can, in suitable circumstances, require an employer to transfer a disabled employee to another position and potentially disapply ordinary competitive selection requirements.

Significance: Employers should not automatically insist that a disabled employee compete on identical terms with other applicants if doing so would defeat the duty to make reasonable adjustments. A trial placement may be an appropriate way of assessing the employee's ability to perform an alternative role.

However, the case does not establish an unconditional right to any vacancy. The proposed adjustment must be reasonable in the circumstances.

5. Wade v Sheffield Hallam University [2012] UKEAT

Legal principle: Redeployment does not require appointment to a role for which the employee is entirely unsuitable

The case is relevant to the limits of an employer's redeployment obligations. The duty to consider alternative employment does not necessarily require an employer to appoint an employee to a position for which the employee is unsuitable.

Significance: Employers should distinguish between a candidate who needs reasonable training or adjustments and a candidate who cannot perform the essential duties of the position. A trial may be appropriate where uncertainty can reasonably be resolved through practical experience, but it is not an automatic entitlement to every alternative position.

6. Bugden v Royal Mail Group Ltd [2024] EAT 80

Legal principle: Redeployment must be considered when assessing dismissal fairness

The employee was dismissed under an attendance-management policy following substantial periods of ill-health absence. The Employment Appeal Tribunal rejected the appeal concerning the specific reasonable-adjustment argument but allowed the challenge concerning unfair dismissal.

The Tribunal had erred by failing to consider redeployment as an alternative to dismissal when assessing fairness.

Significance: Employers should not assume that dismissal is fair merely because an employee cannot continue in the current role or has exhausted an absence-management process. Where appropriate, the availability of alternative work must be considered as part of the overall fairness assessment.

The case also illustrates that a failure to establish a particular disability-related adjustment does not necessarily resolve the separate question of whether a dismissal was fair.

7. Redcar and Cleveland Primary Care Trust v Lonsdale [2013] UKEAT 0090/12

Legal principle: Redeployment policies and disability-related opportunities

The employee had a visual impairment and had previously been redeployed to a lower-graded role with adjustments. During a subsequent restructuring, she challenged the limitations imposed by the employer's redeployment framework on the positions she could pursue.

The case is relevant to the way an employer's redeployment policy operates in practice and the need to assess disability-related issues rather than treating a general policy as necessarily decisive.

Significance: Employers should examine whether redeployment rules create unjustified barriers for disabled employees. A rigid grade-based or selection-based policy may require closer examination where reasonable adjustments are legally required.

8. Department for Work and Pensions v Boyers [2022] EAT 76

Legal principle: Redeployment and work trials in disability-related dismissal decisions

The case addressed whether redeployment or a work trial could be relevant when assessing the proportionality of dismissing a disabled employee under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010.

The decision supports considering whether alternative work or a trial placement could provide a practical alternative to dismissal, rather than focusing exclusively on the employee's inability to perform their existing duties.

Significance: Employers should consider whether a suitable alternative role or work trial could avoid dismissal and whether refusing that option is objectively justified.

9. Golam Chowdhury v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd [2025] EAT 132

Legal principle: Objective assessment of reasonable adjustments and redeployment

The employee had a condition affecting his ability to stand and walk for extended periods. He argued that redeployment and training for alternative positions should have been considered before dismissal.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal addressed the assessment of reasonable adjustments, including the suitability of alternative roles and the possibility of training. The appeal was dismissed.

Significance: Whether redeployment or training is reasonable depends on the evidence and circumstances at the relevant time. Employers should assess essential job requirements, potential adjustments, and the employee's actual capabilities rather than relying solely on assumptions.

5. Statutory Trial Periods Under UK Law

Section 138 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is particularly important where an employee facing redundancy accepts an offer of alternative employment.

The legislation generally provides a four-week statutory trial period where the employee moves into suitable alternative employment under a renewed or new contract in the circumstances covered by the section. A longer period may be agreed for retraining, subject to statutory conditions, including a written agreement made before the employee starts the new role.

The statutory framework addresses the consequences where the employee terminates the new contract, or the employer terminates it for a reason connected with differences between the old and new contractual terms. The circumstances and statutory requirements determine whether redundancy-payment rights are preserved.

Employers should therefore distinguish between:

A statutory redundancy trial period under section 138.

An informal or contractual trial agreed between the parties.

A disability-related trial placement intended as a reasonable adjustment.

A probationary period associated with a new appointment.

These arrangements may have different legal consequences. A four-week statutory trial is not a universal limit on all redeployment trials, and a disability-related trial may be appropriate for a different period depending on the circumstances.

6. Employer Responsibilities During a Redeployment Trial

A legally sound redeployment process should include the following measures.

1. Provide written terms

Explain the job title, duties, remuneration, reporting line, trial duration, assessment criteria, and consequences if the trial is unsuccessful.

2. Provide appropriate training

Identify skills gaps and offer reasonable training, guidance, and adjustments where appropriate. Do not treat unfamiliarity with a new role as conclusive evidence of inability.

3. Apply fair assessment criteria

Assess performance against the actual requirements of the role. Keep records of feedback, support provided, progress, and any concerns raised by the employee.

4. Consult the employee

Discuss whether the duties, workload, location, working hours, and other conditions are suitable. Give the employee a genuine opportunity to explain difficulties.

5. Record the final decision

Explain whether the placement is confirmed, extended by agreement where lawful, or unsuccessful. Consider other vacancies and applicable redundancy, discrimination, notice, and dismissal obligations.

7. Employee Rights and Potential Legal Remedies

An employee who believes a redeployment trial has been handled unlawfully may have grounds to raise concerns where the facts support a claim involving:

Unfair dismissal or failure to consider suitable alternative employment.

Failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability.

Discrimination arising from disability or other unlawful discrimination.

Breach of contract or unlawful deductions from wages.

Failure to comply with statutory trial-period requirements.

Failure to follow a binding collective agreement or applicable redundancy policy.

The available remedy depends on the applicable legislation, the employee's status, the facts, and any procedural requirements or time limits. Employees should retain written offers, trial-period agreements, performance assessments, emails, training records, and communications concerning the decision.

8. Practical Example

Suppose a company eliminates a data-entry position because of automation and offers the employee an alternative administrative role requiring different software skills.

A fair process would involve explaining the new duties, identifying training needs, agreeing on a suitable trial arrangement, and assessing performance after appropriate support. If the employee struggles initially but improves with training, the employer should consider that evidence before deciding the placement has failed.

If the role is unsuitable, the employer should explain why and consider other available positions and the employee's applicable redundancy rights. If the employee has a disability, the employer may also need to consider reasonable adjustments and whether a trial itself would be a reasonable adjustment.

By contrast, immediately dismissing the employee because of poor performance during the first few days, without the agreed training or assessment process, may expose the employer to legal challenge depending on the circumstances.

9. Conclusion

Trial roles during redeployment are an important mechanism for preserving employment and reducing avoidable dismissals. They allow both parties to assess the suitability of an alternative position, while giving employees an opportunity to acquire new skills and demonstrate their capabilities.

The cases discussed establish several important principles: statutory trial-period requirements must be respected; redeployment can be a reasonable adjustment for disabled employees; trial placements should be assessed objectively; and alternative employment should be considered when determining whether dismissal is fair.

The central principle is that a redeployment trial should be a genuine assessment of suitability, not merely a formality before dismissal. Employers should follow a transparent, documented, and legally compliant process that takes account of the employee's circumstances and the applicable statutory framework.

Jurisdiction note: This explanation focuses primarily on UK employment law. The cases and statutory provisions cited should not be treated as automatically applicable in India or other jurisdictions. For a workplace matter in India, the relevant Indian employment legislation, applicable state law, employment contract, and service rules would need to be examined separately.