The Complainant was employed by the Respondent company Zeus Packaging Group from the 8th of May 2017 to the 24th of July 2020 as a Business Sales Executive. Due to the COVID-19 outbreak, there was considerable change within the Respondent business which resulted in six redundancies within the company, one of which was the complainant’s role. The Complainant was one of the employees who was be laid off. (Details of the correspondence were submitted in evidence by both parties).

The Respondent submitted that the first correspondence sent to the Complainant was on the 24th of March 2020,  in which the Complainant was advised of temporary lay-off.

On the 1st of May 2020, an e-mail was sent advising of the extension of temporary lay-off to which the Complainant did not reply and on the 6th of May, a letter was sent by registered post informing her of the extension of temporary lay-off which again went unanswered. On the 27th of May she was emailed with two letters; the first advised her of operational changes to her role and the second was in relation to the return of her company car. The Respondent submitted that they did not receive any reply or engagement in relation to this correspondence. Further e-mails were sent by the Respondent to the Complainant drawing attention to the fact that there had been no response to any previous correspondence.  The Respondent submitted that all calls went unanswered.  It appears that during this time the Complainant may have had issues with her Wi-Fi connection which contributed to her lack of engagement with the Respondent.

On the 19th of June the Complainant was emailed about the need to make contact in relation to the return of the company car and a second letter advised of a three-day period to get in touch or the Respondent would have to locate and pick up the vehicle. The Complainant was then advised that the company car had been located outside of the restricted area for travel, which would have necessitated a breach of public health guidelines if they sought to pick it up. The car rental company advised that the vehicle be reported stolen to the Garda Síochána. The Complainant was informed and given twenty-four hours to make contact to avoid this happening. The Complainant agreed to return the car to Dublin on the 1st of July 2020

A meeting took place on the 10th of July 2020 and the Complainant was informed that her role was now considered redundant and that attempts would be made to secure alternative employment. The Complainant raised a number of questions which were answered the following day. On July 31st of July,  the redundancy payment was made.  The company carried out a skills selection matrix and selected for redundancy using the same criteria for all employees.

The Complainant felt that she was unfairly selected and also stated that she was not given any chance to appeal the redundancy.  However, at every stage in the consultation the documentation provided to the Adjudication Officer showed  that there was opportunity to raise questions, queries or suggestions throughout. The Complainant chose to engage in this very process and the Respondent provided as much information as they possibly could to the Complainant.

The Adjudication Officer noted that the Respondent, like many business during the pandemic suffered a downturn in business and therefore there was no dispute that a genuine redundancy situation did exist.  What was less clear was how objective the selection process was and how real and substantial the consultation process was.  The lack of transparency in the selection process and lack of consideration of the Complainant for the remaining post in her department led to a finding of unfair dismissal by the Adjudication Officer.  It was noted that it wasn’t the quality of the consultation that was the issue in this case but the fairness of the selection process.

The Complainant failed to demonstrate that she had mitigated her loss and the award was reduced by 50%.  The Adjudication Officer also noted that the Complainant had received a redundancy payment and the finding of unfair dismissal meant that she was not entitled to the redundancy payment and compensation for unfair dismissal and therefore the parties must liaise to arrange for the repayment of the redundancy pay.  The Adjudication Officer ordered compensation in the sum of €10,000 to be paid.  
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2021/october/adj-00030274.html