Lay off was unfair because there was no fair selection process or meaningful consultation, despite a genuine redundancy need.

The Complainant had worked as Production Manager from May 2021 until August 2023, earning €800 gross per week. He maintained that he had been unfairly dismissed after the Respondent placed him on temporary lay-off with almost no notice, following a grievance he had raised about pay in May 2023. He said the lay-off was rushed, involuntary and retaliatory, taking effect the next working day after notification. He accepted that he later submitted an RP9 form seeking redundancy but said he had done so only because he had been left without meaningful communication, without a return date and without any realistic alternative. He claimed the redundancy was not genuine, that no transparent selection criteria had been applied, that no consultation occurred, and that he should have been considered for a Quality Engineer role filled while he was on lay-off.

The Respondent denied that the Complainant had been dismissed. It said he had voluntarily resigned by submitting an RP9 form and claiming redundancy following lay-off. The Respondent manufactured precision engineered products and said it had suffered serious financial pressure by May 2023 due to loss of repeat work, increased metal prices and increased shipping costs arising from the war in Ukraine. It said the company’s cash position had deteriorated, the overdraft was almost exhausted, and the weekly wage bill was unsustainable. Four employees, including the Complainant, had been placed on temporary lay-off because their functions were considered more expendable and the Managing Director could absorb some production-management duties. The Respondent said no replacement staff were hired during the three-month period after lay-off. It also said the later Quality Engineer role was different, temporary, and not interchangeable with the Complainant’s Production Manager role.

The Adjudicating Officer held that the complaint was well founded. The incorrect respondent title was amended, as no prejudice arose. The Respondent’s preliminary argument that the Complainant had voluntarily resigned by claiming redundancy failed. The RP9 issue did not remove his right to rely on the Unfair Dismissals Acts. On the substance, the Adjudication Officer accepted that the Respondent had faced a genuine need to reduce costs and that a lay-off situation existed. However, the selection and lay-off process had been unfair. The Complainant was given notice only the day before lay-off took effect, no selection matrix or transparent criteria were used, no meaningful consultation occurred, no alternatives such as reduced hours were considered, and the Quality Engineer role was not discussed with him. Although there had been a genuine business difficulty, the process was arbitrary and unreasonable. Compensation of €2,500 was awarded.

Employers should:                

• Treat lay-off as a serious employment step, not as an informal holding measure. Even where there is a genuine downturn, financial pressure or reduced work, the employer should be able to show why lay-off was necessary, why particular employees were selected, and what alternatives were considered.  
  
  
• Have consultations before selection by giving an opportunity for employee input, consideration of reduced hours or alternative roles, and clear communication about the likely duration of lay-off. If roles are available, even arguably different roles, the employer should consider whether the employee may be suitable or capable of adaptation. 
  
  
• Avoid assuming that an RP9 form automatically defeats an unfair dismissal claim. A genuine redundancy need will not rescue a flawed, rushed or arbitrary process.

The full case can be found here.