The Complainant commenced working for the Respondent on the 26th of March 2018 and was made redundant on the 10th of July 2020.  It was the Complainant’s submission that she was unfairly dismissed.

The Respondent submitted that the Complainant was one of a number of employees who were made redundant as a result of a rationalisation initiative to drive operational efficiencies and cost saving measures. The Respondent submitted that they engaged in consultation with the Complainant, however, no suitable alternative role was found. The Respondent maintained that the Complainant had been afforded fair procedures at all times.

The Respondent contended that the company had suffered a 40% downturn in business when the Covid-19 pandemic first arrived in Ireland. The Respondent was able to claim the TWSS payment during this period and no staff were made redundant. However, from the beginning of June 2020 the business was no longer in receipt of the TWSS as they were suffering a loss of 20-25%. At a meeting on the 29th of June 2020, the Complainant was informed that her role was placed at risk of redundancy because the department she worked in was the worst affected area.

The Complainant then attended a meeting on the 3rd of July when she was issued with a formal notice of redundancy and was also given a letter which contained final information on the redundancy, details of the related payment and was advised of her right to appeal. She appealed the decision and a meeting took place on the 26th of August, 2020. On the 22nd of September, the Respondent advised the Complainant that her appeal was unsuccessful.

The Respondent submitted that they had engaged in a consultation process but there were no alternative roles to offer to the Complainant.  The Respondent advised the Complainant that the other departments required a different skillset, a skillset that the Complainant did not have.

The Adjudication Officer accepted that most of those made redundant appeared to have been selected on the basis of length of service. However, when considering the specific case of the Complainant, the Adjudication Officer noted that a different employee who started working nearly six months after the Complainant, was not selected for redundancy, which the Respondent submitted was because of his ‘skills’. However, the Adjudication Officer found that the employee was retained because of the heavy weights involved in the role; thereby departing from the 'last in-first out'.  The Respondent decided on this basis that the Complainant was unsuitable for the role but said in direct evidence that no risk assessment had been carried out.

The Adjudication Officer found that the departure from the policy of selection on the basis of the service meant that redundancy was not the primary reason for the dismissal of the Complainant and found the Complainant to have been unfairly dismissed, awarding compensation of €10,400 which equated to six months of the Complainant’s salary.

Practical Guidance for Employers

It is clear that unfortunately the effects of the Covid-19 have reached far and wide for employers and in some circumstances, employers have been left with no other alternative but to make staff redundant. It is most important that when engaging in the redundancy process that Employers do not vary from their selection policy and make special arrangements for one employee over another which could result in prejudice. 
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2022/february/adj-00030243.html