In a world where change is constant and businesses must adapt, redundancy is sometimes an unfortunate reality. As the recent Employment Appeal Tribunal decision in Hendy Group Ltd v Kennedy reminds us, how redundancy is handled can make all the difference.
Background
Daniel Kennedy had been employed Hendy Group Ltd, a car dealership, for several years. By 2015, he had moved into a role training sales teams across the company. Prior to this he had over 30 years of experience in the motor trade including as a car salesperson.
In 2021, Mr Kennedy was made redundant. He challenged the dismissal, and the Employment Tribunal found in his favour, ruling that the redundancy was unfair. Hendy Group appealed but the EAT upheld the original decision.
The key question was: Did the employer do enough to consider alternative employment for Mr. Kennedy?
The Tribunal found that Hendy Group had not; despite Mr Kennedy’s extensive experience and the availability of other roles within the company, the Tribunal found that no reasonable effort was made to either identify or support alternative employment. The EAT agreed, emphasising that employers must go beyond ‘box-ticking exercises’.
Why This Matters
This case is a timely reminder that redundancy isn’t just a process we have to follow to ensure we are legally compliant; it is a human experience. Behind every decision is a person with a story, a career, and a future. The law reflects this by requiring employers to act reasonably, fairly, and with genuine consideration for alternatives to redundancy, including redeployment.
Key Takeaways
- Redundancy is about people. Employers must actively explore suitable alternative positions and engage in meaningful dialogue with affected employees in respect of these.
- Documentation and communication matters. The Tribunal noted the lack of evidence showing that alternatives were properly considered during the process. The EAT also criticised the way that Mr Kennedy had been communicated with by HR, using an email account he could not access, and the fact he was not able to access vacancies in the same way as an external candidate.
- The “range of reasonable responses” test still applies. But it doesn’t give employers carte blanche to make decisions without proper process or empathy
A People-Centric Approach
For HR professionals and business leaders, Hendy Group v Kennedy reminds us of the importance of keeping empathy and compassion at the core of our approach when managing change. Redundancy decisions should be made with care, transparency, and a genuine effort to support those affected.
[1]: Hendy Group Ltd v Daniel Kennedy: [2024] EAT 106 – GOV.UK
Author: Kate Woosnam, Lead Associate
