The United Kingdom’s Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) ruling in Hendy Group Ltd v Mr D Kennedy [2024] EAT 106 acts as a clear reminder to employers of their obligations when handling redundancies. The case emphasises that employers must properly seek and consider alternative employment for employees facing redundancy and highlights the risks of failing to do so. In particular, merely sending an “at risk” employee the company’s job vacancy list (a popular approach taken by companies) may not be enough to fulfil obligations.

Quick Hits

• The UK’s Employment Appeal Tribunal ruled that employers must actively seek and consider alternative employment for employees facing redundancy, as highlighted in Hendy Group Ltd v Mr D Kennedy.
• The EAT’s decision underscores that simply providing a job vacancy list may be insufficient to meet employers’ obligations during redundancy processes.
• Employers should consider taking proactive steps to support employees facing redundancy, beyond just posting job advertisements, to avoid legal and reputational risks, as emphasised by the EAT’s ruling.

Principles of the Case

Kennedy, the claimant, had been employed by Hendy Group Ltd, one of the UK’s largest multi-franchise dealership networks, since 2013 and from 2015 worked as a trainer in the company’s training academy. His role involved providing training for the sales teams across the workforce. However, in 2020, due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, a genuine redundancy situation...

Read Full Story: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMipwFBVV95cUxPenZUT2pzYlNTMmV2QWtoNVBB...