A recent decision by the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) serves as a timely warning to employers, particularly small to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), about the potential pitfalls of redundancy processes.
In Hendy Group Ltd v Kennedy [2024], a long-serving employee won his unfair dismissal claim despite accepting both the need for redundancies and the fairness of his selection. The issue? His employer failed to provide active support in finding a suitable alternative role within the company.
This case shows that ticking the right boxes isn’t enough. Even when redundancies are unavoidable, the way an employer handles redeployment can significantly impact the fairness of the overall process, with potentially costly consequences.
What happened in this case?
Mr Kennedy had worked for Hendy Group, a car dealership, for more than 30 years. During a restructuring triggered by the pandemic, his training role was placed at risk of redundancy. He accepted that redundancies were necessary and that he’d been fairly selected.
Although numerous internal vacancies existed during Mr Kennedy’s notice period, he argued that Hendy had failed in its duty to explore suitable alternative jobs within the business. The Employment Tribunal agreed – and when Hendy appealed, the EAT upheld that decision.
Support authors and subscribe to content
This is premium stuff. Subscribe to read the entire article.
