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