How should you handle redeployment in a redundancy?
You are managing a redundancy process. One employee, well-liked, long-serving, clearly capable, is at risk. There are other vacancies around the business, but you tell him to check the internal jobs board and wish him luck. He is not offered help, no one tells the hiring managers he is at risk, and within a week, he has lost access to the intranet. Can you still call it a fair dismissal?
What happened?
In Hendy Group Ltd v Kennedy, the employer, an established car dealership with many sites, made Mr Kennedy, a trainer with decades of sales experience, redundant. He accepted that the redundancy was genuine and that his selection was fair. But he claimed the company did not do enough to help him find another role. The tribunal agreed.
Mr Kennedy was told he could apply for vacancies, but HR did not help him do so. He was given no guidance on what might be suitable, no support with applications, and no indication that anyone was batting for him behind the scenes. Shortly after receiving notice, he had to return his laptop, cutting off his access to the intranet and e-mails. Managers reviewing his applications were not told he was at risk of redundancy. And one interviewer’s negative feedback ended up counting against him in subsequent applications.
By the end, Hendy Group had rejected him for roles he was plainly suited for, some citing vague concerns over his ‘motivation’ and others based on casual historic comments about his career preferences. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) upheld the tribunal’s finding that this was an unfair dismissal. The original tribunal had awarded Mr Kennedy £19,566.73 with no Polkey reduction.
What did the court decide and why?
The EAT confirmed that a reasonable employer must take active steps to look for suitable alternative employment. Simply pointing someone towards vacancies and leaving them to it will not do, especially for a large employer with multiple sites and roles. Section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires employers to act reasonably in all the circumstances. That includes showing a genuine interest in whether redeployment might be possible.
What did the employer get wrong?
- No one spoke to Mr Kennedy about his options.
- He was offered no support with identifying or applying for suitable roles.
- There was no internal coordination or advocacy on his behalf.
- Hiring managers were not told he was at risk.
- HR relied on vague objections rather than objective reasons for rejecting him.
The EAT did not say that employers must always prioritise at-risk staff. But if someone is clearly qualified for a vacancy, and you turn them down, you need to have a good reason. Not liking their commute or speculating about their long-term interest in the role is not sufficient.
What should you do?
Even a textbook selection process can unravel if you do not properly deal with redeployment. To stay on the right side of fairness:
Start a proper conversation
Ask the employee what kinds of roles they would consider. Include demotions, retraining, or relocation where relevant. Document the discussion.
Do not just signpost vacancies – guide
Send relevant roles directly to the employee. Offer help with applications. If needed, assign someone to support them, especially in larger organisations.
Tell hiring managers they are at risk
This is not preferential treatment – it is context. Managers cannot factor it in if they do not know.
Keep systems accessible
Avoid cutting off access to e-mail, intranets or internal portals until the end of the notice period. Otherwise, you are setting them up to fail.
Avoid vague rejections
Do not rely on hearsay, historic preferences, or soft reasons like ‘fit’ unless you can back them up. Especially if the employee has a strong record in similar roles.
Have someone oversee the whole process
In multi-site or matrixed organisations, it is easy for things to fall through the cracks. Assign someone, often in HR, to coordinate and track the support being offered.
The case shows that the bar for ‘reasonable’ effort rises with the employer’s resources. Hendy did not need to create a role for Mr Kennedy, but it did need to show it genuinely tried to keep him. The law expects more than lip service when it comes to avoiding dismissals.
Source: Read the decision here Hendy Group Ltd v Daniel Kennedy: [2024] EAT 106 – GOV.UK
