Everyone knows that an essential part of a fair dismissal for redundancy is proper consideration of alternative employment, yes? But what does that mean in practice for the employer?
In Hendy Group -v- Kennedy, the Employment Appeal Tribunal has taken a look at this principle that everyone knows about and pulled out of it some faintly concerning lessons as to the extent of the obligations which it imposes.
After a long career in car sales, Mr Kennedy found his happy place as a trainer of other car salespeople for Hendy’s academy. He was good at his job, as you might expect after so long in Sales, and apparently recognised for his commitment and relentlessly positive disposition.
Hendy’s need for car sales trainers was skittled by the pandemic, and Kennedy very maturely agreed not just that this was the case, but also that in Hendy’s shoes, he too would have selected himself out of those at risk. His unfair dismissal claim rested entirely on the assertion that Hendy had not done enough to find him another role. The ET agreed, but Hendy challenged this – the Employment Judge had committed the rookie error of deciding the case on the basis of what he would have done if he were Hendy, it said, instead of considering neutrally whether Hendy’s actions had fallen within or outside the old range of reasonable responses.
The EAT considered the largely undisputed facts around Kennedy’s job search which had been found by the ET and disagreed. Hendy had fallen short of what an...
A $14.6 billion web of deceit that stretched across the country has prompted a massive federal crackdown in the U.S. health care system. More than 300 people are facing charges nationwide in what ...