Redundancy and fairness

Before holding this position, he had over 10 years’ experience as a car salesperson. The training role was placed at risk of redundancy. It was accepted that the redundancy situation was genuine and that Mr Kennedy’s selection was fair. Mr Kennedy claimed unfair dismissal, arguing that his employer had failed in its legal duty to help him find another job within the business.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) agreed and found the dismissal to be unfair. The employer had not made a reasonable effort to identify or support alternative employment. Its approach was one which no reasonable employer would have adopted.

In particular:

• During his notice period, Mr Kennedy could only see job vacancies in the same way as external applicants
• He was given no guidance or help in identifying what roles might be suitable for him to apply for
• After his applications for several sales roles were rejected, the employer told him any further applications for sales roles would be unsuccessful as they questioned his motive in applying for them
• HR communicated with him via an email account he couldn’t access
• HR did not tell managers he was at risk of redundancy
• There was no evidence that the employer tried to match him to available roles.

Accordingly, Mr Kennedy was awarded his full financial losses. No Polkey reduction was made because the EAT found that, had the employer acted fairly, Mr Kennedy would have been likely to secure another job within the business.