And speaking of getting overlooked brings me to the case of Hendy Group Ltd v Kennedy, and what constitutes a reasonable effort to identify and facilitate suitable alternative employment for staff at risk of redundancy.

Mr Kennedy had been employed by the employer, a nationwide car dealership chain, since 2013 and held various roles, primarily in sales. In 2015, Mr Kennedy transitioned to a training manager role and his employment continued until 2020. When the COVID-19 pandemic hit, it led to a significant decline in training activities and as a result, Mr Kennedy’s role was placed at risk of redundancy.

Mr Kennedy did not dispute the genuine nature of the redundancy or the selection process; however, issues arose during his seven-week notice period. Despite being told he could apply for internal vacancies, Mr Kennedy was not provided with support and his access to the intranet and email systems were withdrawn early, hindering his ability to monitor job openings or communicate with internal hiring teams. HR provided no structured guidance or assistance and recruiting managers were not informed that Mr Kennedy was at risk of redundancy.

Throughout his notice period, Mr Kennedy applied for several internal sales roles positions, however, one failed interview appeared to prejudice future opportunities. Mr Kennedy received a final email on his last working day confirming that his applications for further roles would not be progressed and the email raised concerns about his motives for applying for sales positions, effectively barring him from redeployment in that area.

Mr Kennedy brought claims of unfair dismissal, arguing that the employer failed to take reasonable steps to properly or fairly explore the possibility of retaining him in a different role to avoid redundancy.

The ET found in favour of Mr Kennedy and held that he had been unfairly dismissed. While the redundancy itself was genuine, the employer’s lack of support and proactive approach to find alternative employment made the dismissal unfair. The withdrawal of Mr Kennedy’s IT access, lack of communication with hiring managers and the refusal to consider further job applications were all considered unreasonable actions by a large employer with multiple vacancies. The ET awarded Mr Kennedy nearly £20,000 in compensation.

The employer appealed the ET’s decision.

The EAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ET’s findings of unfair dismissal. The EAT agreed that the employer had not acted as a reasonable employer would in the circumstances and reiterated that an employer’s duty to seek alternative employment for redundant employees must be assessed in the context of its size and resources. As a large organisation with a range of suitable vacancies during the relevant period, the employer was expected to take more proactive measures to prevent redundancies. This would have included helping Mr Kennedy identify potential roles, facilitating conversations with hiring managers and supporting his transition.

This case serves as a significant reminder that the legal test for a fair redundancy process extends beyond selection and consultation. It includes a substantive obligation to take meaningful and documented steps to explore suitable alternative roles for at-risk employees. Simply directing redundant employees to a vacancies page is insufficient. Employers must actively assist and guide individuals towards suitable roles, even if this involves lateral moves or demotions. It is essential to maintain the employee’s access to internal communications and vacancy tracking systems throughout their notice period, ensuring they have the tools needed to pursue alternative opportunities.

Additionally, hiring managers and internal recruiters should be informed when an applicant is at risk of redundancy to guarantee fair consideration and prevent decisions based on irrelevant factors, such as a single unsuccessful interview. A structured and compassionate approach is not only best practice but also a legal necessity to avoid costly unfair dismissal claims.