Training for Redeployment Feasibility 

1. Meaning and Concept of Training for Redeployment Feasibility

Training for redeployment feasibility refers to the process by which an employer assesses whether an employee whose existing position is being abolished, reduced, or substantially changed can be trained or retrained to perform another available role within the organisation.

Redeployment means moving an employee from their existing position to a different position instead of terminating their employment. Training for redeployment feasibility examines whether the employee can reasonably acquire the skills, qualifications, technical knowledge, or competencies required for the alternative role.

This concept is particularly important during:

Organisational restructuring and downsizing.

Redundancy and workforce reduction.

Automation and technological transformation.

Business closures, mergers, and departmental reorganisations.

Changes in job responsibilities or required qualifications.

Return-to-work arrangements following illness, injury, or disability.

The central legal question is whether an employer has genuinely considered suitable alternative employment and whether reasonable training could enable the affected employee to perform that work.

Example: If a company automates its manual data-entry department but has vacancies in its digital records department, it may assess whether affected employees can be retrained in database management. If a reasonable training programme would enable them to perform the available roles, redeployment may be a practical alternative to dismissal.

However, an employer is not necessarily required to create a new position, guarantee successful retraining, or provide unlimited training. The precise obligation depends on the applicable employment legislation, contractual terms, collective agreements, workplace policies, and circumstances of the case.

2. Legal Framework Governing Redeployment Training

A. Duty to consider alternatives to dismissal

In jurisdictions that regulate redundancy or unfair dismissal, an employer may need to consider whether suitable alternative employment is available before terminating an employee. Training feasibility can be an important part of that assessment.

A position should not automatically be considered unsuitable merely because the employee does not possess every skill on the first day. The employer should assess whether the missing skills can reasonably be acquired through induction, supervised practice, short courses, or structured retraining.

B. Reasonableness and proportionality

The assessment should balance the employee's prospects of successfully performing the alternative role against the employer's operational requirements.

Relevant factors include:

The employee's existing qualifications and transferable skills.

The nature and complexity of the alternative position.

The duration and cost of training.

The availability of trainers, equipment, and learning resources.

The time available before the alternative role must be filled.

The employee's performance and ability to learn the required tasks.

The consequences of leaving the position vacant during training.

A reasonable decision must be based on evidence rather than assumptions about an employee's age, disability, background, or ability to learn.

C. Consultation and procedural fairness

Where required by law, contract, or collective agreement, employers should consult affected employees about possible alternatives, explain the competencies required, and give them a meaningful opportunity to identify relevant experience or express interest in vacancies.

A redeployment assessment may be legally defective if the employer has already decided to dismiss the employee without genuinely considering available positions or feasible training.

D. Disability and reasonable accommodation

Where an employee has a disability, applicable disability-discrimination laws may require the employer to consider reasonable adjustments, including training or retraining for a suitable vacant position.

The employer should distinguish between an essential qualification that cannot reasonably be waived and a skill gap that can be addressed through training or workplace adjustments. The exact duty varies by jurisdiction.

3. Important Case Laws on Training and Redeployment Feasibility

The following decisions provide guidance on suitable alternative employment, fair redundancy procedures, reasonable accommodation, and the employer's obligation to assess alternative work. Some address redeployment directly, while others establish related legal principles.

1. Hendy Group Ltd v Daniel Kennedy [2024] EAT 106

Legal principle: Genuine consideration of alternative vacancies

The Employment Appeal Tribunal examined whether an employer had reasonably considered alternative employment before making an employee redundant. Although the redundancy itself was genuine, the failure to properly explore suitable roles contributed to the finding of unfair dismissal.

Relevance to training feasibility: Employers should actively investigate available vacancies and assess whether an employee's existing skills and experience could enable redeployment. Simply instructing the employee to search for and apply for vacancies may not be sufficient, depending on the circumstances.

Practical implication: HR departments should document the vacancies considered, the employee's transferable skills, identified training needs, and the reasons for accepting or rejecting each redeployment possibility.

2. Bird v Stoke-on-Trent Primary Care Trust [2011] UKEAT/0074/11

Legal principle: Suitability must be assessed in the employee's individual circumstances

This case concerned a redundant employee who rejected alternative positions because their responsibilities differed substantially from her former role. The tribunal's assessment of suitability and the reasonableness of her refusal did not adequately account for relevant circumstances.

Relevance to training feasibility: An employer should compare the complete responsibilities of the old and proposed positions rather than relying solely on job titles or isolated qualification requirements. Training may help bridge differences in duties, but it does not automatically make every alternative position suitable.

Practical implication: Employers should examine job content, responsibility levels, pay, working arrangements, and the employee's realistic ability to acquire any missing skills.

3. Readman v Devon Primary Care Trust [2013] EWCA Civ 1110

Legal principle: Objective suitability and personal circumstances are distinct questions

The Court of Appeal considered whether an employee had unreasonably refused alternative employment. The decision illustrates the distinction between whether a position is objectively suitable and whether an employee's refusal is reasonable in their particular circumstances.

Relevance to training feasibility: A position may be technically achievable after training yet still be unsuitable because of substantial differences in working conditions, responsibilities, or other relevant terms. Equally, a suitable role does not necessarily mean that refusing it is unreasonable.

Practical implication: Redeployment assessments should consider both the feasibility of performing the work and the overall suitability of the proposed employment.

4. Williams v Compair Maxam Ltd [1982] ICR 156

Legal principle: Fairness in redundancy procedures

This Employment Appeal Tribunal decision is an important authority on fair redundancy selection and consultation. It emphasises the significance of reasonable procedures when employers reduce their workforce.

Relevance to training feasibility: Although the case is not a universal rule requiring retraining, its procedural fairness principles support a careful assessment of alternatives before dismissal. Employers should not make decisions based on an arbitrary or predetermined process.

Practical implication: An employer considering redundancy should have a documented procedure for evaluating alternative positions, discussing options with affected employees, and assessing whether retraining could reasonably avoid dismissal.

5. Richardson v HSBC Bank plc [2010] UKEAT/0499/10

Legal principle: Reasonable efforts to identify alternative work

This authority is cited in employment-law discussions concerning an employer's responsibility to look for suitable alternative employment during redundancy. The size and resources of an organisation can be relevant when assessing what efforts are reasonable.

Relevance to training feasibility: A larger employer with several departments, training facilities, and internal vacancies may be expected to make more extensive enquiries than a small employer with limited opportunities.

Practical implication: Employers should consider opportunities across relevant parts of the organisation, taking account of applicable policies and the extent of their operational resources.

6. Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd [1987] UKHL 8

Legal principle: Procedural fairness matters even where dismissal might ultimately have occurred

The House of Lords established that a dismissal can be unfair because of procedural failures, even where the employer argues that following a fair procedure would not have changed the eventual outcome.

Relevance to training feasibility: An employer should not assume that retraining or redeployment would fail without making an appropriate assessment. A fair process requires the employer to consider relevant alternatives rather than treating dismissal as inevitable from the outset.

Practical implication: Employers should record their assessment of vacancies, skills gaps, training options, and the reasons a proposed alternative was or was not viable.

7. Kunal Singh v. Union of India (2003) 4 SCC 524

Legal principle: Protection of employees who acquire a disability during service

The Supreme Court of India interpreted Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, which protected employees who acquired a disability during service.

The Court recognised that an employee who acquired a disability could not simply be discharged or reduced in rank contrary to the statutory protection. Where the employee could not perform the existing job, the legislation provided for adjustment to another post with the same pay scale and service benefits, subject to its terms.

Relevance to training feasibility: This decision supports examining alternative duties and suitable placement when an employee can no longer perform their original role. The exact training obligation depends on the applicable legislation and circumstances.

Practical implication: Employers should consider whether an employee can continue working in another suitable capacity, including through appropriate workplace adjustments, rather than immediately proceeding to termination.

8. Bhagwan Dass v. Punjab State Electricity Board (2008) 1 SCC 579

Legal principle: Non-discrimination and protection of employees acquiring disabilities

The Supreme Court addressed employment protection for an employee who acquired a disability during service. The decision reinforced the importance of implementing statutory safeguards and preventing disability from becoming an unjustified basis for exclusion from employment.

Relevance to training feasibility: Where disability affects an employee's ability to perform existing duties, employers should examine appropriate alternative work and reasonable adjustments under the applicable legal framework.

Practical implication: An employer should assess the employee's remaining capabilities, possible modifications to duties, and the feasibility of alternative placement before taking adverse employment action.

9. Narendra Kumar Chandla v. State of Haryana (1994) 4 SCC 460

Legal principle: Alternative employment and protection of livelihood

The Supreme Court considered the position of an employee whose medical condition prevented him from continuing his existing work. The judgment recognised the importance of providing suitable alternative employment in the circumstances of the case.

Relevance to training feasibility: The decision supports considering an employee's capabilities and the possibility of performing alternative duties when the original position becomes unsuitable for medical reasons.

Practical implication: Employers should assess whether the employee can undertake different responsibilities and whether suitable adjustments or additional training would make the alternative role feasible.

10. State of Haryana v. Narender Kumar Bhardwaj and Other Related Service-Law Authorities

Indian service-law decisions must be examined individually to determine whether they establish a binding requirement for alternative placement, retraining, or accommodation. A case should not be relied upon merely because it concerns medical unfitness or a change in duties.

For redeployment feasibility, the stronger directly relevant authorities include Kunal Singh, Bhagwan Dass, and Narendra Kumar Chandla. These decisions should be applied within their respective statutory and factual contexts rather than treated as establishing a general obligation to retrain every employee facing redundancy.

4. Factors for Assessing Training Feasibility

Employers should use a structured assessment before deciding whether redeployment is a realistic alternative.

5. Recommended Procedure for Employers

A defensible redeployment process should generally follow these steps:

1. Identify the risk: Inform the employee that their existing position may be eliminated or substantially changed, following applicable consultation requirements.

2. Search for vacancies: Review suitable positions across relevant departments and organisational units.

3. Conduct a skills assessment: Compare the employee's current competencies with the essential requirements of available roles.

4. Prepare a training plan: Specify the skills to be developed, training methods, estimated duration, costs, supervision, and performance criteria.

5. Consult the employee: Discuss the proposed role, training requirements, employment terms, and any concerns or adjustments needed.

6. Provide a reasonable opportunity: Where appropriate, allow the employee to undertake training, supervised work, or a trial period.

7. Evaluate objectively: Assess the employee against clearly defined, job-related criteria.

8. Record the decision: If redeployment is not feasible, document the evidence supporting that conclusion and explain why other alternatives were rejected.

9. Complete the employment process: Follow the relevant legal requirements for consultation, notice, redundancy compensation, accommodation, and any appeal or review procedure.

6. Common Legal Risks

Employers may face legal challenges when they:

Dismiss an employee without properly checking for suitable vacancies.

Reject an employee solely because they lack a skill that could reasonably be acquired through training.

Apply inconsistent standards to employees being considered for redeployment.

Ignore reasonable accommodation obligations for employees with disabilities.

Offer a substantially inferior position without adequately considering its terms.

Fail to consult the employee or document the assessment.

Use a training assessment as a pretext for discrimination or a predetermined dismissal.

Conversely, an employer may reasonably conclude that redeployment is infeasible where no appropriate vacancy exists, the role requires qualifications that cannot reasonably be obtained in time, or the training burden is disproportionate to the available opportunity. Such conclusions must be supported by evidence and remain subject to applicable legal obligations.

7. Conclusion

Training for redeployment feasibility is an important part of fair workforce management. It requires employers to evaluate whether employees affected by redundancy, restructuring, disability, or technological change can perform suitable alternative work after reasonable training or adjustments.

The decisions in Hendy Group Ltd v Kennedy, Bird v Stoke-on-Trent PCT, Readman v Devon PCT, Williams v Compair Maxam, Richardson v HSBC, and Polkey v A E Dayton Services illustrate important principles concerning fair procedures and alternative employment. The Indian Supreme Court decisions in Kunal Singh, Bhagwan Dass, and Narendra Kumar Chandla are particularly relevant to alternative placement and employee protection in disability-related circumstances.

The key legal takeaway is that employers should make a genuine, evidence-based assessment of redeployment and training before deciding that termination is unavoidable. However, there is no universal rule requiring every employer to retrain every employee; the applicable obligation depends on the governing law, the employee's circumstances, the vacancy, and the feasibility of the proposed training.

Legal scope note: The case laws above span the United Kingdom and India. Their principles must be applied according to the relevant jurisdiction. In India, the statutory framework governing a particular dispute—including applicable labour legislation, service rules, contractual provisions, and disability law—must be checked before relying on a specific proposition.