Background:
The Complainant claimed her selection for redundancy followed a pre-determined process that appeared manipulated. She began employment with the Respondent in the UK/Ireland Commercial team and was promoted twice, most recently to Director of the Digital Sales (“SMB”) team in 2022. Tensions existed between the UK and Dublin Commercial teams, with the Complainant feeling excluded. In December 2022, it was announced that the Complainant's role would be regionalised, and only five of the eight leadership positions would remain. The Complainant argued the selection process for redundancy lacked transparency and was biased, with an 80:20 weighting between interview and past performance favouring certain candidates. She claimed her selection was pre-determined, the interview questions were unclear, and HR was not involved in the process. There was little effort to find alternatives to redundancy for her. She had anticipated a SMB leadership role but had not been clearly informed she was applying for all five roles. After learning she was unsuccessful and at risk of redundancy, she raised concerns during the consultation process but felt unheard. Her financial loss continued, despite actively seeking new work. Ultimately, she secured short-term employment but did not remain beyond the probationary period.

The Respondent outlined they were an online education company and employed the Complainant as a Commercial Account Executive in Dublin from June 2019. In December 2022, the Respondent announced a 20% workforce reduction due to economic challenges, impacting 254 people globally, including eight managers in the Commercial and SMB functions. The redundancy selection was based on performance and a competency interview, with 3 of the 8 managers, including the Complainant, identified as at-risk. The Complainant's manager, who was alleged to have been biased, supported her in seeking alternative employment within the company. Despite these efforts, no suitable role was secured, and the Complainant's employment ended in February 2023 with full redundancy entitlements. The Complainant did not appeal the redundancy decision. The Respondent contended the process was fair and in line with the Redundancy Payments Act 1967. The selection criteria were reasonable, with no evidence of bias. Senior managers, including Amber van Horn and Mark Wynne, testified about the global restructuring and the transparency of the redundancy process, disputing any claims of predetermined outcomes or improper conduct. The Respondent fully refuted the unfair dismissal claim.

Finding:
The Adjudicating Officer found the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 (as amended) presumes a dismissal is unfair unless justified by substantial grounds. Dismissals due to redundancy are not deemed unfair if they meet the criteria under section 7(2) of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967-2014. Redundancy occurs when an employer ceases operations, reduces the need for employees, or reorganizes work. The burden of proof rests on the employer to demonstrate that redundancy was the genuine reason for dismissal and that the selection process was fair.

In this case, the Complainant's redundancy resulted from a global reduction in workforce. However, the Adjudicator found that the selection process, particularly competency-based interviews, lacked fairness and transparency. The Respondent failed to provide sufficient evidence that the Complainant was objectively assessed compared to other candidates. Consequently, the Adjudicator ruled the dismissal as unfair due to procedural inadequacies and insufficient consultation.

The Complainant was awarded compensation of €112,000, deemed just and equitable based on her efforts to mitigate her loss following termination. The total compensation considered her reasonable actions in seeking alternative employment after dismissal. However, a 50% reduction was applied for the period from 12 September 2023 due to insufficient mitigation efforts during that time. This adjustment reflects the adjudicator's view that while the Complainant had made reasonable efforts initially, her attempts to secure new employment in the later period were lacking, warranting the reduction in the overall compensation.

Practical Guidance for Employers:

Employers should:

• Ensure the redundancy selection process is transparent and objective. Use clear criteria and communicate them fully to all employees.
• Involve HR from the outset to ensure fairness and to avoid any appearance of bias or manipulation.
• Document and review all steps taken to find alternative roles for employees at risk of redundancy.
• Maintain open communication during consultation periods and ensure that all employee concerns are properly addressed.
• Consider appeals mechanisms for employees to challenge redundancy decisions.
• Regularly review redundancy processes to ensure compliance with relevant legal standards.

The full case can be found here:
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2024/july/adj-00044941.html