Daniel Kennedy v Hendy Group Limited — 2021

Mr Kennedy worked for Hendy Group Ltd from 2013, first in used cars and later as one of three full-time trainers in the respondent's training academy. When the pandemic began he was furloughed, the academy was reduced from three trainers to two, and he was selected for redundancy by a small margin. He accepted that there was a redundancy situation and did not say that the selection exercise itself was unfair.

The tribunal found the dismissal unfair because the respondent failed in its obligation to look for suitable alternative employment. Mr Kennedy was given no meaningful assistance by HR or management, was told only that he could apply for jobs open to the public or listed on the intranet, and soon lost access to internal email and the intranet. The tribunal found that there were multiple sales roles available during the notice period, that he identified and applied for several of them himself, and that the respondent did not properly consider him for redeployment.

The tribunal rejected the respondent's Polkey submission and made no reduction, finding that the failure to assist with alternative employment was materially connected to the dismissal. It declined any ACAS uplift under section 207A TULR(C)A 1992 and declined a preparation time order. On remedy, the tribunal found that Mr Kennedy had mitigated his loss fully, that his losses ended when he started a new role on 24 May 2021, and that the loss of his company car and pension were to be included in the compensatory award. The basic award was nil because a redundancy payment of the equivalent amount had already been made, and the total award was £19,566.73. The recoupment regulations applied, with a prescribed element of £15,483.60 and a balance of £4,083.13.