Employee successfully challenged her dismissal because, although there was a genuine redundancy following the loss of a client contract, the employer failed to carry out proper consultation or explore alternatives before terminating her employment.

The Complainant stated that she had been employed by the Respondent as part of its security and facilities operations and returned to work in October 2024 following a period of certified sick leave. Upon her return, she was assigned to a new site as building manager. She asserted that during her time at this location she experienced difficulties with both a client employee and a colleague of the Respondent. She maintained that she had been subjected to bullying behaviour and that, when she challenged such conduct, she was subsequently targeted. The Complainant believed that certain actions directed toward her were discriminatory in nature. She gave evidence that these issues created a hostile working environment. She contended that the termination of her employment, presented as redundancy following the loss of the contract, was unfair and that she had not been adequately informed or consulted about any risk to her role prior to dismissal.

The Respondent stated that the Complainant had been assigned to a client site in a managerial capacity following her return from sick leave. It submitted that the client and its tenants became dissatisfied with the Complainant’s performance and communication, which ultimately contributed to the loss of the contract in late 2024 or early 2025. The Respondent maintained that once the contract ended, the specific role performed by the Complainant ceased to exist and a redundancy situation arose. It argued that the dismissal was therefore based on genuine business grounds. In relation to the allegations raised by the Complainant, the Respondent stated that it had offered to investigate these matters under its internal procedures. Although the Complainant did not engage with this process, the Respondent proceeded with an investigation, which it stated found no evidence of inappropriate conduct or targeting within the organisation.

The Adjudicating Officer accepted that a genuine redundancy situation arose following the loss of the client contract, which resulted in the elimination of the Complainant’s role. However, the central issue concerned the procedural fairness of the dismissal. It was found that the Respondent did not engage in meaningful consultation with the Complainant prior to terminating her employment. There was no evidence that she had been informed that her position was at risk, nor that alternatives to redundancy had been explored with her directly. The Respondent’s internal discussions did not satisfy the obligation to consult with the affected employee. As a result, the dismissal was deemed procedurally flawed and therefore unfair under the Unfair Dismissals Acts. While additional allegations regarding workplace treatment were raised, these were not determinative of the outcome. Award made of €3,292.

Employers should:                

• Treat redundancy as both a substantive procedural exercise. Even where a genuine business rationale exists, such as the loss of a contract, this alone is insufficient to defend an unfair dismissal claim.  
   
  
• Engage directly with affected employees, outlining the reasons for the potential redundancy and actively exploring alternatives such as redeployment, restructuring, or adjusted duties. Records of meetings and communications should be maintained to demonstrate compliance with fair procedures.
   
  
• Ensure that grievance or complaint processes run in parallel but separately from redundancy procedures. Allegations of bullying or discrimination should be handled independently and thoroughly.

The full case can be found here.