Background:

The Complainant had been employed as a life coach and primary care provider for the Respondent, a social care organisation, since 4 April 2005. The Complainant alleged that after returning from annual leave on 29 July 2019 he was told by the General Manager of the Respondent that he would be required to either accept redundancy or a reduced position. This information was provided without any warning. The Complainant did not receive any reasons for this change and there was no redundancy process, despite the Complainant attempting to ascertain those reasons. As a result of this, the Complainant alleged he was coerced into signing documents that he accepted the redundancy and refused the alternative position. After signing this form and ending his term of employment the Complainant lodged an appeal to the Board of the Respondent, who replied two months later advising that “there was no case to answer” and dismissing the appeal. The Complainant suffered ill health after this purported redundancy and was limited in his ability to provide evidence at the hearing.

The Respondent stated the communication in July was to advise the Complainant that his role was at risk of redundancy, not that he would be made redundant. It claimed it provided all normal employment rights and procedures. The Respondent claimed the role which was offered to the Complainant was largely similar to the role and rate of pay he held in his current position. The Complainant’s current General Manager was present to provide evidence but did not have any experience with the case in question, having been hired after the purported dismissal. The agents of the Respondent who were involved in the purported dismissal were not in attendance to give evidence.

Outcome:

The Adjudication Officer noted there was a dearth of evidence on both sides of this dispute. The Complainant was only able to provide limited evidence and the Respondent did not present any oral evidence from anyone involved in the dispute at the time it occurred. The Complainant was able to establish that a dismissal had occurred, and as a result, the Respondent held the burden of proof to show that the dismissal had not been unfair. The Respondent failed to discharge this burden, and therefore it could not defend the claim against it. The Adjudication Officer found that an award of €40,000 was appropriate, less the €17,964 paid to the Complainant in respect of his redundancy, leaving an additional €22,036 to be paid.

Practical Guidance for Employers:

In unfair dismissal cases, the burden of proof is on an employer to show that a dismissal is not unfair. This means an employer needs to make all efforts necessary to have those involved in a dismissal available to give evidence, even if those individuals are no longer in the employment of the employer respondent.

The full case is here:
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2023/august/adj-00027232.html