The EAT has upheld a tribunal decision that regulations 10(3)(a) and 10(3)(b) of the Maternity and Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999 should be read together when deciding whether there is a suitable available vacancy for an employee whose job becomes redundant during her maternity leave. Unless a vacancy satisfies both limbs of regulation 10(3) it will not be a suitable alternative.

As a result, the employer in this case was not obliged to offer an employee who had worked in London a vacancy in Cheltenham. While the work was suitable and appropriate for her to do in the circumstances (under regulation 10(3)(a)), its location was substantially less favourable to her (under regulation 10(3)(b)) and it did not therefore amount to a suitable alternative vacancy. (Simpson v Endsleigh Insurance Services Ltd and others UKEAT/0544/09.)