Pregnant worker unfairly dismissed by reason of redundancy and awarded €30,000.

The Complainant was a Brazilian national who commenced employment with the Respondent in September 2019, initially as a part-time accounts assistant, and was promoted to Financial Director in January 2022. Her salary was €64,000 and her contract provided for payment of 80% of salary for the first 26 weeks of maternity leave. Following a change of ownership in late 2024, she informed the Respondent in November that she was pregnant and intended to take maternity leave. That same week, she received a proposed new contract that removed her continuity of service, imposed a probationary period, and reduced her remuneration to €24,000, which she contended was unlawful and below minimum wage. She raised a formal grievance. Days later, she was issued with a redundancy notice, without consultation, selection criteria, or any appeal. She maintained that redundancy was a pretext for retaliation and pregnancy-related dismissal.

The Respondent contended that the dismissal was wholly by reason of redundancy arising from a severe financial crisis discovered after a change in ownership. It submitted that significant undisclosed tax liabilities threatened solvency, necessitating restructuring and a reduction in staffing costs. The Financial Director position was a single administrative role with a high salary and was selected for elimination as part of a structural change. The Respondent maintained that it engaged with the Complainant in October/November regarding revised terms and an alternative contract reflecting the business’s financial position, but agreement was not reached. Notice of redundancy was issued. A selection matrix was said to be unnecessary because the role was unique and was eliminated. The Respondent denied that pregnancy or the grievance influenced the decision. Statutory redundancy of €6,600 was paid in instalments by February 2025.

The Adjudicating Officer found that the Respondent’s debt position provided a credible basis for reorganisation and that a genuine redundancy situation was properly “on the table” within s.7(2) of the Redundancy Payments Acts. However, the Adjudicator found that the process was deficient. The Respondent did not warn the Complainant that she was at risk, did not conduct meaningful consultation, did not explain any selection rationale (or why none was required), and provided no right of appeal. The Adjudicator rejected the contention that the grievance ended consultation, describing that proposition as untenable. Attempts to require a signed agreement to secure statutory redundancy were criticised. While arguments of replacement were weak, procedural unfairness was decisive. The dismissal was held unfair and compensation of €30,000 was awarded, with maternity-pay loss treated as attributable to the dismissal.

Employers should:             

• Distinguish between a genuine business rationale and a fair process. Even where the commercial case is strong, a redundancy defence will fail if the employee is not told they are “at risk”, is not given reasons and meaningful information, and is not afforded consultation directed at alternatives. Consultation should begin before decisions are final.
  
  
• Record why selection criteria or a matrix are not applicable and should evidence the structural change through contemporaneous records, including elimination of the post and redistribution of duties. Proposed revised terms must be lawful and credible; extreme or unlawful reductions can undermine good faith.
  
  
• Ensure procedural safeguards, i.e., written notice setting out the redundancy basis, an opportunity to respond, representation, and a right of appeal. Do not condition statutory entitlements on signing waivers. Maintain a clear paper trail; business case, consultation notes, alternatives considered, and decision rationale (particularly where pregnancy or other protected circumstances arise).

The full case can be found here.