The Complainant brought his case before the WRC claiming he was unfairly dismissed due to the absence of a fair selection process for redundancy. The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent as a hair stylist in March 2014 and ended on the 4th of March 2020. 

The Respondent’s representative’s written submission requested the complaint should be dismissed on a preliminary point. The Respondent submitted the Complainant issued his complaint 6 days prior to the termination of his employment, therefore, the Respondent opined that on that basis an Adjudication Officer may not entertain the dispute. However, the Adjudication Officer held that they had jurisdiction to hear the complaint in circumstances where the Complainant’s notice had not yet expired. 

The Complainant submitted that on the 26th of February, the Respondent owner asked him to go to the staff room. The Respondent, accompanied by another person unknown to the Complainant, named Anne, advised him that she was making him redundant. She gave the Complainant one week’s notice. The Respondent further advised him that as he had not reached 2 years’ service, he was ineligible to receive a redundancy payment. The Complainant stated there were 3 stylists employed in the salon and no explanation was offered to him as to why he was selected for redundancy.   

The Respondent submitted in February 2020, it became clear that the business could not support more than two stylists. The junior and last person to be employed by Shinelle Hair & Beauty was the Complainant, Mr Simik. The Respondent submitted a fair selection had taken place. Subsequently, the business closed on the 16th of March 2020 in compliance with the direction issued as the result of the COVID-19 Pandemic. The Respondent submitted the termination of the Complainant’s employment was in adherence with the terms of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, the Redundancy Payments Act and the Unfair Dismissals Act and the company maintained the dismissal was not unfair. 

However, the Respondent was unable to refute the Complainant’s evidence that he was booked out every day, except for the January – February period. The Adjudication Officer stated even where the evidence is indicative of a redundancy, the employer is not relieved of the obligation to employ fair procedures or explore alternatives to redundancy. Under Section 6.7 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, the Adjudicator is entitled to consider the reasonableness of the Respondent’s conduct.  An examination of the Respondent’s conduct revealed: 

• there was no consultation process; 

• the complainant received no notification that his position was at risk; 

• no discussion took place with the complainant as to the criteria to be used in advance of the notification to make him redundant; 

• the complainant was summoned to attend a meeting without being afforded the opportunity to source a person to represent him; 

• the complainant was told that his redundancy was due to the respondent’s decision to reorganise and restructure the business. He was told this at the meeting on the 26 and in an undated letter which followed on after the meeting; 

• there was no consideration at that meeting or later to any alternatives to redundancy such as reduced hours or lay off. 

The Respondent did not provide evidence in relation to any redundancy procedures. 

Based on the evidence, the Adjudication Officer found the Respondent failed to discharge the onus of proving that the selection process was fair. The Adjudication officer upheld the Complainant’s claim of unfair dismissal and ordered the Respondent to pay the Complainant the sum of €2,750.  

Guidance for Employers:

The Unfair Dismissals Acts provides the burden of proof rests with the employer to show that the dismissal was fair. Where a Complainant alleges that they have been unfairly selected for redundancy and therefore unfairly dismissed, the onus of proving fair selection and therefore a fair dismissal lies with the Respondent. 

The full case is available here: 
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2022/october/adj-00027315.html