In Hendy Group Ltd v Kennedy [2024] EAT 106, the Tribunal found that Hendy Group had unfairly dismissed an employee during a redundancy situation after failing to make adequate efforts to support redeployment.
The case centres on Section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which requires employers to act reasonably in treating redundancy as sufficient grounds for dismissal. The ruling reinforces the principle that employers must not only show a genuine redundancy situation exists but also demonstrate that reasonable steps were taken to identify suitable alternative employment.
Mr Kennedy, a long-serving employee with over 30 years of experience in motor sales and training, was dismissed in November 2020 during a cost-cutting exercise brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite multiple internal vacancies during his notice period, the company made no active effort to support him into another role. He was removed from internal communications and received only minimal verbal assistance from his line manager. HR failed to notify recruiting managers of his redundancy risk or provide tailored support, resulting in missed opportunities.
The tribunal found that this approach fell outside the range of reasonable responses expected of an employer of Hendy’s size and resources. It ruled that Mr Kennedy’s dismissal was unfair, ordering a payment of £19,566.73, and crucially, declined to apply a Polkey reduction. This reflected the judge’s finding that, had proper support been given, Mr Kennedy would likely have secured a new position within the business.
The EAT upheld the decision, clarifying that the correct legal tests had been applied and rejecting arguments that the tribunal had improperly substituted its own view for that of the employer. While the judgment acknowledged that some phrasing in the original ruling could have been more precise, it concluded that the factual findings and reasoning were sound.
This case underscores the need for employers to engage meaningfully in redeployment efforts. Reasonable steps will depend on context but are likely to include direct communication with affected staff, helping to identify suitable roles, and ensuring internal systems do not disadvantage those at risk. Failure to act proactively may result in liability for unfair dismissal.
Hendy Group Ltd v Daniel Kennedy: [2024] EAT 106.
