Getting redundancy processes right: finding alternative employment

Blog

27.06.2025

Following our previous blog on the importance of getting redundancy selection criteria right, we continue our spotlight on redundancy with a specific focus on considering alternative employment during the redundancy process.

In the recent case of Hendy Group v Kennedy, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) found that the dismissal of an employee was unfair due to the employer’s failure to consider appropriate alternative employment during a redundancy process. This case serves as a cautionary reminder for employers to ensure that they have properly considered alternative employment when carrying out a redundancy process.

Hendy Group v Kennedy

Hendy Group is a car dealership, and at the point of his dismissal, Mr Kennedy was a training manager at its Training Academy. Before working in that role, he had over 30 years’ experience in the motor trade, specifically in car sales. In 2020, a redundancy situation arose, largely as a result of the COVID pandemic, and Mr Kennedy’s role was placed at risk.

The Employment Tribunal (ET) accepted that the redundancy situation was genuine, and that Mr Kennedy’s selection for redundancy was fair. However, Mr Kennedy’s claim for unfair dismissal centred around the fact that no adequate, appropriate or fair consideration had been given to the possibility of him continuing to work for Hendy Group, albeit in a different role.

The ET upheld the claim, finding that Hendy Group had failed in its fundamental duty to consider alternative employment for Mr Kennedy. Hendy Group appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).

Appeal

The EAT agreed with the ET and upheld the finding of unfair dismissal, finding that Hendy Group (which was a large organisation with adequate resources) had not made a reasonable effort to identify alternative employment or support Mr Kennedy in securing an alternative role. In particular:

During his notice period, Mr Kennedy could only see job vacancies in the same way that external applicants could see them. He was also asked to return his work laptop a week after he was told he was notified of his dismissal (despite there being a seven-week period before his dismissal took effect) so he was unable to access the intranet or internal email.
He was given no guidance or help to identify what roles might be suitable for him.
Mr Kennedy’s line manager stated he was unable to help with any roles outside of the Training Academy (within which there were no vacant roles).
Mr Kennedy applied for a sales role but was rejected, despite his previous experience, and an existing employee who was not at risk of redundancy was appointed to that role.
Mr Kennedy applied for another sales role, but was not interviewed and it was offered to an external candidate instead.
No training was considered to facilitate Mr Kennedy’s successful return to a customer facing sales role.
HR did not tell managers Mr Kennedy was at risk of redundancy, so they could consider that when determining candidates for available roles.

Mr Kennedy was awarded £19,566, reflecting his losses after being out of work for over seven months. No Polkey deduction was made because the EAT found that if the employer acted fairly and in accordance with its duty, Mr Kennedy was likely to have secured another job within the business. (A Polkey deduction is made from a compensatory award in an unfair dismissal case to reflect the likelihood that, although a dismissal was procedurally unfair, it would have happened in any event.)

Key lessons for employers

Genuine consideration of alternatives

In this case, the Tribunal placed emphasis on the responsibility of employers to actively and meaningfully explore alternative employment before confirming redundancy. Hendy Group, for example, failed to consider Mr Kennedy’s previous experience when assessing internal vacancies and did not provide him with any guidance or support to assist him with securing an alternative role. It is clear that the Tribunal expects a proactive approach from employers in this regard.

Considering suitability

Hendy Group was criticised for applying a narrow lens on what was deemed a "suitable" alternative role. It is important to consider an employee’s transferable skills and consult with the employee where necessary. Suitability should be assessed holistically and employee preferences as well the availability of training and support (if necessary) should be taken into account.

Documentation

Hendy Group’s failure to evidence its attempts to find alternative roles for Mr Kennedy significantly weakened its defence and demonstrated to the Tribunal that there was no structured redeployment process. Employers should keep detailed records of vacancy lists, employee communications and consultation notes.

Procedural fairness

In this case, the employer’s failure to follow a fair process rendered the dismissal unfair. To ensure dismissals for redundancy are fair, employers must follow a clear and transparent process which includes:

In particular, this case serves as a timely reminder that employers must demonstrate a genuine commitment to exploring alternatives vacancies and supporting affected employees to avoid dismissal where possible.

With many thanks to Ali Ahmad, a current Legal Assistant, for their help in preparing this blog.

This publication is a general summary of the law. It should not replace legal advice tailored to your specific circumstances.