The Complainant was employed as a General Manager for the Respondent between the 14th of August 2017 and the 26th of June 2020. He was made redundant during the Covid-19 pandemic. The Complainant asserted that his dismissal was unfair. The Respondent asserted that his role was redundant. 

The Respondent outlined that it is a specialist outdoor catering provider and part of the Respondent group. The business collapsed in 2020 as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic. The Complainant was employed as general manager and managed a team of 100 for large sporting events. In that year, the Respondent entity only provided catering to two small events, which incurred losses. The Respondent submitted that the company’s future was uncertain. 

In May 2020, the senior manager informed the Complainant of the loss of revenue and that his role was at risk of redundancy. The Complainant was issued with an at-risk letter and a consultation meeting took place remotely. 

A second consultation meeting was also held to discuss alternatives to redundancy. No redeployment opportunities were found for the complainant, and he was issued with redundancy letter on the 29th of May 2020. He appealed the decision and there was an appeal hearing. At this, three alternative positions were discussed, none of which were suitable alternatives for the Complainant.   

The Complainant submitted that he went on sick leave on the 27th of March 2020, for medical treatment and returned a month later and was placed on lay-off the day he returned. 

The Complainant outlined that it was the lack of process and the lack of clarity in the process that concerned him. He felt undervalued and that this was a tick-box exercise. While the first consultation referred to ‘suitable alternatives’, there should have been a clear two-stage process, with the first being whether a redundancy situation existed rather than immediately engaging with alternatives.  Further, the Complainant submitted that the Respondent did not explain why the role was redundant.  

The Complainant sought the financial data but never received it. The senior manager had said that the complainant was redundant because he had not applied for the other jobs. The Complainant stated that this was a misinterpretation as the process provided that he had to be redundant before the other jobs could be considered at all. 

The Complainant submitted that he had applied for alternative roles. He was confident managing people and had dealt with unionised staff at two locations. On the 21st of August 2020, he was informed that he had not been successful in his application for this role, but this role was later re-advertised. The complainant applied for regional manager roles in named supermarkets but was not successful. There were not many jobs advertised in his industry and he went to set up his own business in painting and decorating on the 9th October 2020.  

The Adjudication Officer highlighted that the timing of events leading up to the ending of the Complainant’s employment was important. The Adjudication Officer noted that it was unclear why the redundancy process had to commence within two weeks of the Complainant coming off sick leave and then completed within four weeks.  

The Adjudication Officer found that the Complainant’s role was not unique to the sports and entertainment entity within the respondent company and that he could have been assigned to any part of the business.  

Ultimately, the Adjudication Officer found that the Complainant’s dismissal was an unfair dismissal and awarded compensation in the sum of €45,000 as just and equitable compensation for the unfair dismissal. 

Guidance for Employers 

In order for a valid redundancy situation to exist, the Employer must have explored all alternative roles available for Employees. Significantly, the Adjudication Officer noted in this case that it was artificial to assess the availability of alternative roles in May and June 2020 as this was during the first lockdown and many people were on lay-off. Employers delayed hiring people. There was little real prospect of the complainant identifying a suitable alternative in this short period. Given the extraordinary circumstances, the Respondent ought to have assessed alternatives over a longer period. 
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2022/may/adj-00029348.html