The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent in February 2016 as a Business Development Manager. The Complainant’s duties included developing new solutions and services, introducing direct sales and assisting with the development of the Respondent’s office in Holland.

In October 2016, the Complainant was requested to provide a budget forecast for targets which were client specific. The Complainant stated that he was concerned at this approach and advised the Respondent that he preferred to do a revenue-based approach. This became an issue of significant contention between the parties.

In November, the Complainant was invited to a meeting were his performance was discussed, and it was stated by the Respondent that notwithstanding the contribution the Complainant had made to the business in Holland, the gross contribution of the Complainant was insufficient and the Respondent needed to consider the role of the Complainant.

In January 2018, the Complainant received a letter entitled “Proposed Redundancy”. The Complainant submitted that it was solely him that was being considered for redundancy. The Complainant submitted that he was not afforded fair procedures in the instant case.

The Respondent contended that it provided a detailed, obvious and substantive economic reason for redundancy of the Complainant’s post which was objectively justified by financial evidence which the Complainant did not rebut.  The Respondent submitted that the Complainant was provided with detailed information and reasoning which he had a full opportunity to challenge, discuss and consult about over an eight-month period. However, the Complainant did not avail of this opportunity.

The court noted that there were issues around the selection of the Complainant for redundancy. There were no other staff members considered for redundancy. Therefore, the court was satisfied that the dismissal of the Complainant was disguised “under the cloak of redundancy”, and that the process adopted by the Respondent was unfair, unreasonable and disproportionate. Accordingly, the Complainant was awarded €16,000 in compensation.
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2019/september/adj-00015878.html