WRC found an employee was unfairly dismissed due to a flawed redundancy process that lacked meaningful consultation, alternative role consideration, and an appeals mechanism.

The Complainant was employed as a QA Engineer with the Respondent from January 2022 until May 2024. He claimed he was unfairly selected for redundancy, asserting that the consultation process was wholly inadequate. He stated that the Respondent made no proposals to him during the process and placed the burden on him to identify alternative roles. Despite highlighting his 15 years’ experience as a Recruiter and further experience as a Business Analyst and Scrum Master, he claimed no consideration was given to him for such roles. He also noted there were no discussions about possible training or development for alternative positions. Under cross-examination, he acknowledged that he lacked the skillset required for roles in software development and data quality engineering.

The Respondent stated that the Complainant and three other QA Engineers were invited to a meeting chaired by the VP of Technology and attended by the Senior Partner. At this meeting, it was explained that the business was pursuing greater efficiency in 2024 and had identified inefficiencies in the QA/Developer process. Specifically, the model of one QA per development team was said to create bottlenecks and delays. A proposed restructure involved developers testing their own code, thereby eliminating the need for separate QA roles. The Respondent confirmed that this was a proposal and that a 30-day consultation period would begin to explore alternatives or redeployment opportunities within the GDC Group. It was emphasised that the proposal was efficiency-driven, not performance-related. Following the consultation period, all four QA Engineers were made redundant. The restructure was implemented with no plans to reinstate the QA function.

The Adjudicating Officer found that the Complainant had been unfairly dismissed. While the Respondent claimed the dismissal was a genuine redundancy under s.7(2) of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967, the decision noted that redundancy must be both substantively genuine and procedurally fair. The Complainant’s redundancy was limited to one department, and QA Engineers in other departments were not considered. The Respondent failed to engage in meaningful consultation, did not explore voluntary redundancies or redeployment opportunities across the wider organisation, and did not provide an appeals mechanism. These procedural failings undermined the fairness of the redundancy process, rendering the dismissal unfair under s.6 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts. The Adjudication Officer found that the Complainant had taken reasonable steps to mitigate his financial loss but remained unemployed or underpaid for a period following the dismissal. Taking into account both the inadequate consultation and the Complainant’s efforts to mitigate loss, a compensatory award of €25,000 was made, which was considered just and equitable in all the circumstances.

Employers should:

• Considering redundancies must ensure that the process is both genuine and procedurally fair. It is not enough to demonstrate a business rationale (such as a restructuring or efficiency drive) if the redundancy selection process is flawed. Employers should define clear and objective selection criteria and apply them consistently across the organisation, including across departments where similar roles exist.
  
  
• Consultation must be meaningful and genuine. Employers should engage in dialogue with affected employees, invite suggestions or alternatives, and actively explore options such as redeployment, training, or voluntary redundancy schemes. Merely informing employees of a decision already made is insufficient and exposes the employer to liability for unfair dismissal.
  
  
• Employers should ensure procedural fairness by documenting all steps taken, allowing employees to respond and appeal decisions, and providing clear communication throughout. These measures not only reduce legal risk but also foster transparency and trust within the organisation.

The full case can be found here.