The Complainant’s employment commenced on the 11th of March 2013 and his employment was terminated on the 25th of June 2021. The Respondent stated the reason was due to redundancy, however, the Complainant alleges his selection for redundancy was unfair. 

The Complainant was appointed as a Club Games Coach on or about the 1st of March 2017. In May 2021, the Complainant was informed his role was at risk, arising from financial difficulties created by Covid-19.  A consultation meeting took place and in attendance was the Chair and Executive member, Anthony Weldon. These two members were appointed by the club committee to oversee the review and act as the primary contacts during the consultation process. A further consultation meeting was held whereby the Club, through their nominees, informed the Complainant that his role was at risk based on the facts of financial pressures. On the 24th of June 2021, the Club wrote to the Complainant to state that his role would be made redundant based on the combined factors of financial pressures and the diminished need for the role of club coach. As no alternative role could be identified, the Respondent Club regretted that it would be necessary to terminate his employment. The Complainant stated that the selection process was unfair and that while a redundancy may have been required, the manner in which he was selected over others was not fair or reasonable. 

The Respondent stated that a genuine redundancy situation arose, and that the selection process was fair and involved a robust consultation process. 

The Adjudication Officer noted it was clear from the evidence that the decision maker did not consider the Complainant’s request to be redeployed into bar work or caretaking duties. That process in turn may have identified someone else to be made redundant, objectively, and fairly. The Respondent could also have placed the Complainant on lay off or reduced his salary and have availed of Government subsidy schemes prior to deciding if they had to make him redundant. 

The Adjudication Officer held the presumption of unfairness must be rebutted by the employer and while they have demonstrated that the Complainant’s role was no longer required; they did not demonstrate they acted reasonably before they made him redundant.  

The Adjudication Officer stated the test to be applied is how reasonable was the conduct of the employer when deciding that this employee should be made redundant over others. In the absence of any proof that alternatives were meaningfully considered and combined with the fact that the process was rigid; provided no specific reasons why redeployment would not take place; the selection process must be deemed to be unfair. For these reasons, the Adjudication Officer determined that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed. 

The Complainant claimed his redundancy payment should be calculated from the 11th of March 2013. The Respondent submitted that no insurable employment relationship existed until the 1st of March of 2017. The Adjudication Officer found against the Complainant and his appeal of the Employer’s decision concerning the commencement of employment on the 11th of March 2013 as that period of engagement with the scheme was not as an employee which was insurable for all benefits under the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005. Therefore, this Complaint was not well founded.  

 The Adjudication Officer concluded that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed and awarded the Complainant the sum of €26,083 compensation.  

Guidance for Employers: The Employer has the right to re-organise how work is done either based on the need to be more efficient or for some other reason such as the requirement to reduce costs. However, the essential characteristic of redundancy is that it is an impersonal decision. The onus is on the employer to demonstrate they acted fairly and reasonably. In this case, the employee had little or no input into the selection criteria and while the nominees always relayed back to the deciding committee what the Complainant said and sought; there was no active engagement with his suggestions. The answer was always apologetically no without detailing why he was to be picked over others.The presumption of unfairness must be rebutted by the employer. The employer must also demonstrate they acted reasonably in choosing an employee when other personnel are retained. In the above case, the Respondent failed to adequately consider the Complainant for alternative roles.  

 Full case available here: 
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2022/october/adj-00035649.html