WRC found that the redundancy was genuine and that the selection process had been applied fairly.

The Complainant contended that she had been unfairly dismissed by way of an unfair selection for redundancy. She stated that although the store in which she worked had closed, there were alternative positions available within another branch operated by the Respondent in the same town. She submitted that five other employees had been recruited to that store and that she had not been given an opportunity to transfer, despite her experience and good work record. The Complainant asserted that she had received positive feedback from management regarding her performance and believed that her sales figures were stronger than the Respondent suggested. She also stated that her contract contained flexibility and that her role was not limited solely to electrical goods sales, meaning she could have worked in other departments. For these reasons, she believed that the redundancy selection process had been unfair and that she had been dismissed in circumstances where redeployment within the business should reasonably have been considered.

The Respondent accepted that the Complainant’s employment had ended but maintained that the dismissal arose from a genuine redundancy following the closure of its electrical store in Dungarvan. The Respondent explained that, after reviewing business operations, it decided to close that store and redeploy the homeware department to its Main Street store. Staff were informed of the closure and a consultation process followed, including engagement with the Trade Union. A redundancy selection matrix was agreed and applied to employees whose roles were affected. The Respondent stated that the Complainant’s role formed part of a group of positions that were no longer required following the closure. The Respondent rejected the claim that employees referenced by the Complainant were comparable, stating that those employees worked in a separate store that was not affected by the closure. It was further stated that the Complainant had been offered consideration for other vacancies but indicated that the alternative location was not feasible for her.

The Adjudicating Officer examined the relevant statutory provisions under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 and the Redundancy Payments Act 1967. It was accepted that the Respondent had closed one of its stores and that this decision resulted in the redundancy of a number of roles, including that of the Complainant. The Adjudicator noted that the Respondent had consulted with employees and their Trade Union and had implemented a redundancy selection matrix. In assessing whether the Complainant had been unfairly selected for redundancy, the Adjudicator considered whether fair procedures had been followed and whether the employer had acted reasonably. Having reviewed the evidence, the Adjudicator found that the Respondent had applied the agreed selection criteria in a consistent manner and that the Complainant’s position had not been singled out unfairly. Accordingly, it was determined that the redundancy was genuine and that the selection process had been carried out fairly.

Employers should:

• Ensure that any redundancy process is based on a genuine business need and that the reason for the redundancy can be clearly explained and evidenced. Decisions such as store closures, restructuring, or reductions in workforce should be supported by documented business reviews.     
   
  
• Apply objective and transparent criteria. Selection matrices are commonly used and should be developed carefully to ensure that they assess relevant factors such as skills, experience and operational needs. Where a selection process has been agreed with a trade union or employee representatives, it is essential that the employer follows that.  
   
  
• Consider whether suitable alternative employment exists within the organisation before confirming redundancy. Employees should be informed of any available vacancies and given a reasonable opportunity to apply for them. Maintain accurate records of consultation meetings, selection criteria, and redeployment discussions. 
  

The full case can be found here.