The WRC found that employee was unfairly dismissed by his employer as his selection for redundancy was influenced by a prior disagreement with a manager rather than genuine business reasons.

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent in January 2022 as a truck driver. In January 2024, he had a disagreement with his Foreman regarding scrap metal and was placed on temporary lay-off the following week and received a lay-off notice. The Complainant claimed he was unfairly selected for redundancy due to this disagreement, alleging that others were retained or hired while he was laid off. He later discovered a WhatsApp message sent by his Foreman suggesting he was “left go” for “talking about others and not listening”. The Complainant only became aware of this message in October 2024 and sought an extension of time to pursue the complaint.

The Respondent submitted that the Complainant was not unfairly dismissed but voluntarily claimed statutory redundancy during a period of temporary lay-off. The redundancy was processed in April 2024, following a request supported by his trade union. The Respondent rejected any claim of retaliatory dismissal or improper selection for redundancy and stated that the cited WhatsApp message did not originate from any authorised representative of the Company. The Respondent asked that the complaint be dismissed, as the Complainant had effectively ended the employment by seeking redundancy himself.

The Adjudicating Officer found that considering the six-month time limit under s.41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, the relevant date for bringing a complaint was mid-April 2024. However, the Adjudicator accepted that the Complainant only became aware of relevant information of a WhatsApp message suggesting improper motives for his dismissal on 4 October 2024. This provided reasonable cause to extend time under s.41(8).

The Adjudicator found that the Complainant had been laid off in January 2024, claimed redundancy on in April 2024, and obtained new employment by early March 2024. There was credible evidence that the lay-off was not due to a downturn in work but rather stemmed from a prior disagreement with a manager. As such, the Complainant’s selection for redundancy was found to be unfair. Although he had lawfully claimed redundancy, the surrounding circumstances rendered the dismissal unfair. The appropriate redress was compensation. The Adjudicator awarded the Complainant €1,200, separate from and not inclusive of his statutory redundancy payment, pursuant to the Unfair Dismissals Acts.

Employers should:                

• Exercise care when selecting employees for redundancy to ensure the process is objective, transparent, and not influenced by unrelated factors such as personal disagreements or past disciplinary actions. All decisions should be based on genuine business needs and supported by clear documentation to demonstrate a fair and consistent approach.  
  
  
• Where temporary lay-off is used, clearly communicate that this is a short-term measure and that redundancy will only be considered if the situation persists. If an employee claims redundancy under the Redundancy Payments Acts during lay-off, employers must assess whether the claim is valid and be cautious not to retrospectively justify termination for unrelated reasons.
  
  
• Ensure internal communications, including emails or informal messages, are carefully managed. All staff in managerial roles should be trained to maintain professionalism in communication.

The full case can be found here.