Background:

The Complainant commenced employment as a Quality Manager with the Respondent in October 2003.

The Complainant stated the first mention of his redundancy was on 25 May 2020 when he was called to an unscheduled meeting which he had no prior knowledge. The Complainant was given a letter also dated 25 May 2020 in which confirmed his role was considered redundant with effect from 29 May 2020 and that his duties were being transferred to the Respondent’s premises in Quebec. The Complainant submitted he raised his objections at that meeting, pleaded against the redundancy proposal based on his length of service and attested ability to work and perform a range of roles/functions. The Complainant stated he was told there were no alternative positions available, there was no option to negotiate and no appeals process. The Complainant stated he was escorted from the premises which led him to be “ashamed”, “embarrassed” and “disappointed” after his seventeen years of faithful service.

Subsequently, the Respondent sought the Complainant's acceptance of a written compromise agreement which the Complainant refused to sign. Consequently, he stated that he only received his statutory redundancy of one week’s pay per year of service which was far less than others had been given. He stated his VHI membership, life insurance and pension contributions were terminated on 29 May 2020.

The Respondent stated the Complainant’s position in the company was terminated by way of redundancy effective from 26 June 2020.

The Adjudication Officer was satisfied the Respondent had demonstrated that it was genuinely engaged in cost cutting and staff reduction measures in response to the financial/business situation in 2020.  The WRC held the Complainant was unfairly dismissed on the basis that the Respondent had not discharged the burden of proving that he was fairly selected for redundancy. The Adjudication Officer was also satisfied the Complainant was not afforded fair procedures. The Complainant had not been afforded the right of appeal, he was given no prior notice of the initial meeting and no alternatives to redundancy were discussed with him.

Outcome:

The Respondent was ordered to pay the Complainant the sum of €45,000 compensation for the unfair dismissal.

Practical Guidance for Employers:

There is an onus on an employer to act reasonably, fairly and in a transparent manner in deciding which employee is selected for redundancy. The establishment of a fair, transparent, and objective selection process for redundancy can assist an employer in discharging this onus.

The full case is here:
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2023/may/adj-00030734.html#