In our January 2007 e-bulletin we covered a recent EAT decision in which the payment of a protective award was unreduced to take account of earnings even though the individual was not actually serving notice during the protected period on the basis (applying Susie Radin) that the protective award is intended to be punitive. (Cranswick County Foods v Beall). For clarity, we should have made clear that the employee must actually be made redundant to be eligible for a protective award. Section.189(3) TULR(C)A states that employees "who have been dismissed as redundant, or whom it is proposed to dismiss as redundant and in respect of whose dismissal or proposed dismissal the employer has failed to comply with a requirement of s.188 [consultation]" will be entitled to a protective award. This might suggest that those employees who are "affected by measures" but who are not actually made redundant might also be eligible for a protective award where there has been a failure to consult. However, it is implicit from a reading of the following section 191 that if the employee's contract is renewed or he is re-engaged under a new contract or he unreasonably refuses suitable alternative employment, then he is no longer entitled to a protective award.