Hendy Group Found to Have Unfairly Dismissed Employee in Redundancy Case
Hendy Group Ltd unfairly dismissed an employee after failing to properly consider alternative job opportunities during a redundancy process, the Employment Appeal Tribunal has ruled.
• public
Hendy Group Loses Appeal Over Unfair Redundancy Dismissal
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has upheld a decision against Hendy Group Ltd, finding that the company unfairly dismissed Mr Daniel Kennedy due to a flawed redundancy process. The original Employment Tribunal ruled in favour of Mr Kennedy, awarding him £19,566.73 in compensation, a decision Hendy Group appealed.
Failure to Consider Alternative Employment
The core issue revolved around Hendy Group's failure to adequately consider alternative employment options for Mr Kennedy within the company before making him redundant. Mr Kennedy had been a trainer within the Training Academy, but prior to that, had extensive sales experience. While the redundancy itself was deemed genuine and the selection process fair, the tribunal found that Hendy Group did not provide sufficient support or proactively explore alternative roles for Mr Kennedy.
Tribunal's Findings
The Employment Tribunal highlighted several key failings:
- Limited assistance was provided to Mr Kennedy in applying for internal vacancies.
- HR communicated to him via email when the Claimant no longer had access.
- No active steps were taken by the HR department or management to identify or suggest suitable alternative positions.
- Feedback from a previous interview negatively impacted subsequent applications.
- The Tribunal was critical of an e-mail, because the Respondent appeared to evidence that a decision had been taken that the Claimant would not be considered for roles in sales.
The Tribunal criticised the company's approach, stating that instead of supporting Mr Kennedy in finding an alternative to dismissal, the company appeared to actively block him from securing other roles.
Appeal Dismissed
Hendy Group challenged the original ruling on three grounds, arguing that the Employment Tribunal:
- Applied the wrong test when considering alternative employment.
- Substituted its own view for that of the employer.
- Failed to properly consider a potential Polkey reduction (a reduction in compensation to reflect the likelihood that the dismissal would have occurred anyway, even with a fair process).
Her Honour Judge Tucker dismissed all grounds of appeal. While acknowledging that the Employment Tribunal's statement of law could have been more detailed, she found that the Judge had clearly kept the correct test in mind. The EAT also found that the original Tribunal’s findings were relevant to the question of remedy. The Judge was satisfied that the Respondent had carried out its responsibility in terms of considering alternative employment.
Implications for Employers
This case serves as a reminder to employers of the importance of a thorough and proactive approach to exploring alternative employment options during redundancy situations. Simply informing employees of vacancies is not sufficient; employers must actively assist and support employees at risk of redundancy in finding suitable alternative roles within the organisation.
Read the entire judgement here: Hendy Group Ltd v Mr Daniel Kennedy [2024] EAT 106
