Genuine redundancy survived imperfections in the consultation process.

The Complainant contended that his dismissal by reason of redundancy was unfair and effectively predetermined. He had initially been offered a €53,000 voluntary severance package before being formally placed at risk, which he maintained demonstrated that the subsequent redundancy process was directed specifically at removing him. He disputed the Respondent’s characterisation of his role as specialising solely in Thermal Energy and maintained that his role had been artificially narrowed to justify redundancy. He had participated in three consultation meetings but argued that the process had failed to provide an adequate explanation for his selection. Although he had applied for several internal positions, he maintained that the Respondent had not provided meaningful assistance or actually offered suitable alternative employment despite continuing recruitment. He also challenged the fairness and independence of the appeal process and said that his dismissal had resulted from a flawed consultation and selection procedure rather than a genuine redundancy.

The Respondent maintained that the dismissal resulted from a genuine business reorganisation involving its withdrawal from Thermal Energy operations in Ireland and the UK. The Complainant had been the sole employee specialising in that area, and his role had consequently become redundant. An earlier voluntary severance proposal had preceded the formal redundancy process and had not demonstrated predetermination. Following its rejection, the Complainant had been formally placed at risk, and three consultation meetings had taken place. The Respondent had explored alternative employment. The Respondent engaged with Talent Acquisition, assisted with the Complainant’s CV and interview preparation, and sought to identify transferable skills and potential opportunities. The Complainant had applied for several internal positions but had been unsuccessful. Following confirmation of redundancy, he had received three months’ notice and statutory redundancy. His subsequent appeal concluded that the redundancy process had been properly conducted.

The Adjudicating Officer found that the Respondent had genuinely ceased carrying on its Thermal Energy business. They accepted that this had resulted in the disappearance of the Complainant’s specialised role. The Officer rejected the contention that the earlier voluntary severance offer established predetermination, accepting that it had arisen because the business was already moving in another direction. The Respondent had subsequently placed the Complainant at risk, conducted three consultation meetings, explored alternative roles and afforded him an appeal. The Adjudication Officer also considered significant the evidence that the Complainant had been reluctant to provide information concerning his transferable skills and potential alternative roles. Although she acknowledged that the redundancy process might not have been perfect, she concluded that any shortcomings had not rendered the dismissal unfair when the process was assessed in its totality. The unfair dismissal complaint was therefore declared not well founded. The terms of employment complaint was likewise rejected for lack of supporting evidence.

Employers should:

1. Demonstrate a genuine business rationale for the proposed redundancy. Where a particular business activity or specialism is being discontinued, contemporaneous documentation recording the commercial decision and its consequences can provide evidence that the redundancy concerned the position rather than the individual occupying it. An earlier voluntary severance proposal will not necessarily establish predetermination but ensure that subsequent consultation remains genuine and capable of affecting the ultimate outcome.
2. Explain why the role is at risk, permit the employee to challenge the proposed rationale and meaningfully investigate alternatives to dismissal.
3. Don’t allow procedural laxity. A structured consultation process, reasonable redeployment efforts and a meaningful appeal remain important safeguards against an unfair-dismissal finding. 
   

The full case can be found here.