In today’s fast-changing business environment, the pressure to cut costs and restructure often leads to the difficult decision to make roles redundant. But amid these changes, one crucial legal—and moral—obligation is frequently overlooked: the duty to seriously consider suitable alternative employment for employees affected by redundancy.
The case of Hendy Group Ltd v Daniel Kennedy [2024] EAT 106 serves as a powerful reminder that this duty must be more than a box-ticking exercise. It requires a proactive and meaningful approach.
What was the case about?
Mr. Kennedy, a long-serving employee with over 30 years in the motor trade, had moved into a training role that he valued for its stability and working hours. When redundancy loomed during the pandemic, he accepted both the legitimacy of the situation and his selection. However, his claim focused on the employer’s failure to genuinely explore alternative roles within the company.
“I do not consider”… that telling [Kennedy] that he could apply for posts open and advertised to the world, and on the same basis as every other applicant, to be “help”
Employment Judge, EJ Housego
The Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the original tribunal’s decision that the dismissal was unfair. Hendy Group had effectively left Mr. Kennedy to navigate the process alone. He was told to check the intranet like any external applicant, received no tailored support from HR, and was even cut off from internal systems before his dismissal date. Despite multiple vacancies in sales—roles for which he was well-qualified—he was neither encouraged nor assisted in applying.
The judgment reinforces that employers must go beyond simply listing vacancies. They must engage with the employee, assess suitability, and offer real support. The tribunal also declined to apply a Polkey reduction, finding that the employer’s procedural failings directly caused the loss of redeployment opportunities.
What Counts as ‘Suitable’?
Not every role will be appropriate for every employee, but it is the employer’s responsibility to assess suitability based on:
- Skills and qualifications – Does the role align with the employee’s existing capabilities?
- Pay and status – Is the salary comparable? Would the role involve a significant demotion?
- Location and hours – Would the new role require unreasonable commuting or shift changes?
Any offer must be made in good faith and with full transparency. Employers should engage early, communicate options clearly, and give employees time to consider. If a suitable alternative is unreasonably declined, it may affect the employee’s right to redundancy pay—but this must be handled delicately and with professional advice.
Beyond legal compliance, offering alternative roles can help retain talent, boost morale among remaining staff, and reduce disruption. In a competitive job market, the reputational cost of being seen as an unsupportive employer is too high.
Key Legal Takeaways
The law is clear: before finalising redundancies, employers must explore alternatives as a core part of a fair dismissal process. Failing to do so can lead to unfair dismissal claims, tribunal proceedings, and reputational harm.
Remember:
- Employers must do more than provide a list of vacancies—they have a duty to actively engage with affected employees and help them identify and apply for suitable roles.
- A fair redundancy process includes meaningful support from HR or management. Simply pointing employees to internal job listings is not enough.
- Cutting off access to internal systems before the dismissal takes effect can hinder an employee’s ability to seek redeployment, undermining the fairness of the process.
- Employers must assess alternative roles based on the employee’s skills, experience, and preferences—not make assumptions about disinterest or ineligibility.
- In Hendy Group Ltd v Daniel Kennedy, the EAT declined to apply a Polkey reduction, emphasising that the flawed process directly led to the unfair dismissal.
The Hendy Group Ltd v Daniel Kennedy case sends a clear message: redundancy processes must prioritise fairness, transparency, and genuine efforts to retain staff. HR professionals and managers should revisit internal procedures and ensure that employees are treated not as numbers, but as people.
Philip McCabe, Solicitor 7 July 2025