The latest decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) is a timely warning to employers, especially small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) (small and medium-sized enterprises), which involves potential pitfalls of redundant processes.
新六新六新六新六新六 [2024]a long-time employee won his unfair dismissal claims despite accepting the need for layoffs and the fairness of choices. question? His employer failed to actively support finding a suitable alternative role within the company.
This case shows that checking the correct box is not enough. Even if job layoffs are inevitable, the way employers handle redeployment can significantly impact the fairness of the entire process and have potentially expensive consequences.
What happened in this situation?
Mr. Kennedy has worked for the car dealership Hendy Group for more than 30 years. His training role was at risk of layoffs during the pandemic-triggered restructuring. He accepted that redundancy was necessary and was chosen fairly.
Despite the many internal vacancies during Mr. Kennedy’s notice period, he believes Hendy failed to fulfill his responsibilities to explore appropriate alternative work in the enterprise. Employment Court agrees – When Hendy appealed, the decision was made about diet.
Despite several vacancies during the notice period, Mr. Kennedy was considered an outside applicant. He has no priority access or support. His visit to the company’s intranet and emails was cut off early, and HR failed to notify the hiring manager that he was at risk of layoffs. Despite clear evidence that he wanted to stay, a senior manager even dissuaded his application on the grounds that he was motivated.
Eventually, the Employment Tribunal found that Mr. Kennedy was actively seeking redeployment, but the company has not fulfilled its obligation to help him. result? Hendy was ordered to pay him £19,566.73 in compensation.
Legal principles
Under the Employment Rights Act 1996, even if the redundancy is real and the selection process is fair, the dismissal remains unfair if the employer fails to take reasonable steps to consider the appropriate alternative employment.
The EAT’s decision reiterates that employers have to do more than signposts. They have a positive obligation to support employees in finding suitable alternative roles in the presence of these roles.
What can employers learn
For SMEs, especially those without large HR teams, the redundant process can feel like a legal and logistical headache. This case illustrates that actual mistakes can have unexpected consequences.
Here are the key courses:
-
Support, don’t just tell me
If you have other suitable jobs, you need to help high-risk people visit them. This means pointing them to a list. Can they apply first? Does the hiring manager know who he is? Will they get help from the application?
-
Access the system into place
Cut off access to email, employee intranet, or vacant portals when someone leaves, but when they are still in the business and try to apply for another role. Make sure staff can apply for roles before it is too late.
-
Considering redeployment is an important part of the process
After sending a redundant letter, consider that the replacement work should not be bolted. During the consultation process, there should be meaningful discussions about redeployment.
-
Be careful when judging motivation
Avoid assumptions about commitment or thinking styles to employees unless there is strong evidence. Mr. Kennedy’s case shows that employers are easily seen as unfair doors. Employment courts are alert to subjective opinions used to prevent someone from staying.
-
Keep clear records
Employers should be able to demonstrate the steps they take to help redeploy individuals. Did they send internal vacancy? Have they received support? Have they applied and considered evidence? Paper tracking is important, especially when there are multiple vacant places.
What should you do now
If you are managing the redundant process (or think you might need it), now is a good time to review your internal approach. Ask yourself:
- Do we have a clear, fair process to identify the right alternative role?
- Are HR and Line Managers actively support employees in staying in the business?
- Have we given high-risk employees a real opportunity to redeploy?
- Can we prove that we have done it in writing?
Layouts are often inevitable, but then unfair dismissal claims and the reputation and financial losses they bring – they don’t have to do so. This situation is a sharp reminder that when it comes to redundancy, how you treat people as important as they are going forward.
