Want expert advice on handling redundancies fairly and reducing risk? Complete the form below, and a member of our employment team will be in touch.
Kennedy v Hendy Group highlights the importance of supporting employees in redundancy and exploring alternative roles fairly.
14 July 2025
Case Study
A genuine redundancy situation with an otherwise fair process was held unfair by the Employment Appeal Tribunal, where the employee had not been supported in his search for alternative employment by the employer.
Mr Kennedy had worked for the Hendy Group as a training manager. The training role was placed at risk of redundancy, which was later held to be a genuine redundancy situation, and his selection was found to be fair. So far, so good.
However, his employer had failed to support him in finding a suitable alternative employment within the business. This rendered his dismissal unfair, and he was awarded substantial losses.
Although he was working as a training manager at the time of his dismissal, he had around 30 years’ experience in the car sales field. When it came to the search for alternative employment, his employer told him he could apply via the intranet. Unfortunately, they also removed his work laptop and his access to the intranet.
The HR department offered no help or assistance to him. The EAT was critical of this failure, as well as the fact that the HR department emailed him on a work account that he had been denied access to. Even more surprising, he was told that any applications for a sales role would be blocked, and the Judge commented that employing someone to train others on sales rather suggested he was good at it (if he had been deemed good enough to teach it to others). Therefore, the idea that he should not be considered for sales roles was “fundamentally unsound”.
Whilst the employer appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”) they upheld the Tribunal’s decision and agreed that compensation should be awarded for full financial losses and that no reduction should be made. Now that the judgment has been upheld by the EAT it makes the decision binding on other Tribunals.
Case Study
This case is an excellent reminder of the need for employers to explore alternative employment options for the employee who is facing redundancy. This should not be overlooked.
Further, there is an obligation to do more than just refer to a list of advertised jobs. Instead, the employer (and in particular the HR department) should be offering proactive assistance.
Assumptions should not be made about what roles the employee may or may not want to do, and denying them access to the job vacancies and sending correspondence to an email address that you have disconnected is a definite no!
This case highlights the importance of supporting employees facing redundancy in their search for alternative roles within the organisation. Employers must actively assist, rather than simply directing employees to job listings.
Denying access to job applications or communication channels can lead to findings of unfair dismissal, even where redundancy is genuine and the selection process fair.
Proactive engagement by HR and management, along with clear, accessible communication, is crucial to reduce legal risk and help retain valuable employees where possible.
The Court of Appeal has provided important guidance on the enforceability of training repayment clauses in employment contracts.
Read More
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has clarified when employers may be deemed to have knowledge of an employee's disability.
Read More
Download our probationary period resource pack to help prepare for the Employment Rights Act changes from January 2027.
Read More
An employer's failure to involve an employee in an investigation led to findings of disability discrimination and compensation.
Read More
The EAT highlights the limits of protected conversations and the risks employers face when discussions are handled incorrectly.
Read More
Employer ordered to pay over £264,000 after a reference referring to an ongoing dispute was found to amount to victimisation.
Read More
Download expert guidance on UK trade union reforms and prepare your organisation for Employment Rights Act changes.
Read More
EAT confirms endometriosis can be a disability and examines reasonable adjustments, dismissal risks and performance management issues for employers.
Read More
EAT confirms withdrawing a conditional job offer can breach contract with employers understanding when an offer is binding and notice applies.
Read More
EAT confirms leaving transferred staff on inferior terms can amount to indirect discrimination, even under TUPE.
Read More
EAT confirms dismissal must be based on the employer’s actual reason, not a substitute. Incorrect reasoning can make dismissal unfair.
Read More
EAT finds dismissal unfair in Milrine v DHL (2026). Key lessons for employers on appeal processes and reducing tribunal risk.
Read More