The claimant in this case believed that he had been unfairly selected for dismissal. The respondent company provided management and maintenance services for golf courses. The claimant was employed at a large golf and sports complex which had gone into receivership; the respondent took over the tenancy. The respondent claimed to only receive limited financial and staff reports from the receiver.

The respondent met with staff and informed them that redundancies were likely as they were a high proportion of the business's costs. The respondent said that he wished the redundancies to be voluntary. The respondent company worked on a centralised management system and much of the claimant’s role was covered by said system. At a further individual meeting the claimant was advised that his role was going to be made redundant and the respondent suggested that the claimant could apply for an alternative role – the role suggested, however, was €40k below the claimant’s current salary. At a subsequent meeting the claimant was informed that he was being made redundant. The respondent said the claimant was not replaced. 

The claimant said he believed he was selected for redundancy because of who he was and said he would have discussed working for a slightly lower rate of pay. 

The tribunal held that the “respondent did not discharge the onus to show that the decision was impersonal based on objective criteria”. The court further contended the respondent had failed to explore alternatives. At the same time the tribunal noted how the claimant had not fully attempted to mitigate his loss and on this basis the tribunal awarded the claimant €10,000 by way of compensation. 

To view the full decision:
http://bit.ly/1r6b62b