WRC held that dismissal was unfair due to flawed consultation and redundancy process.

The Complainant was informed in September 2020 that his role as Executive Chef was at risk due to Covid-19. Subsequent consultation meetings occurred in October and November, during which the company cited revenue declines but provided no supporting financial documentation. He was offered a role in China, but shortly after, in early November 2020, was made redundant, with his final payment issued mid-November 2020. He lodged an unsuccessful appeal, citing inadequate consultation, lack of financial transparency, and a flawed selection process. He argued that no meaningful alternatives to redundancy were explored, and his long service was disregarded. The Complainant claimed the redundancy process lacked fairness (relying on decisions such as St. Ledger, Panisi, and Trinity College v Ahmad) which emphasised the employer’s duty to explore redeployment. He alleged the process was a “sham” and resulted in unfair dismissal, seeking compensation for seven months of lost earnings amounting to €57,166.

The Respondent denied that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed, asserting the termination was a lawful redundancy under section 6(4)(c) of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977–2015. The Complainant was informed mid-September 2020 that due to sustained financial difficulties and the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, the company had to restructure and consider redundancies. He was issued an at-risk letter the following day and attended four individual consultation meetings between September and November 2020. During these meetings, redeployment opportunities were discussed, but none were identified. The Complainant raised queries, including a proposed social media role, which was deemed unnecessary. The company confirmed statutory redundancy entitlements and addressed bonus issues. Early November 2020, the Complainant was formally made redundant. He appealed on four grounds, including inadequate consultation and a flawed process, but the appeal was rejected. The Respondent maintained that fair procedures were followed, and the redundancy was genuine and necessary.

The Adjudicating Officer found that the Respondent failed to discharge the burden of proof to show that the Complainant’s dismissal was justified by a genuine redundancy. While acknowledging that the company was adversely impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic and required restructuring, the employer did not adequately explain the specific impact on the Complainant’s role as Executive Chef. The evidence suggested that a meaningful consultation process did not occur, particularly as the Complainant was unaware of two advertised Chef Manager roles and was open to redeployment or a step-down position. The employer failed to provide supporting financial documentation or alternative options, despite being in receipt of state support. The dismissal lacked the impersonality required in redundancy and did not comply with the reasonableness standard under section 6(7) of the Unfair Dismissals Acts. The dismissal was deemed unfair, and the Adjudicator awarded the Complainant compensation of €57,166 for seven months’ financial loss.

Employers should:

• Ensure that redundancy processes are procedurally fair and clearly documented. This includes issuing timely written communications, holding meaningful consultation meetings, and providing objective justifications for the redundancy, such as financial data or business restructuring plans. Failing to provide supporting documentation or failing to follow a fair procedure may render the dismissal unfair, even where a genuine redundancy exists.
   
  
• Explore all possible alternatives to redundancy, including redeployment to suitable vacant roles within the business or group. Employees should be informed of available positions and given a genuine opportunity to apply. If they are open to stepping down or taking different roles, this should be seriously considered and recorded.
   
  
• Ensure selection for redundancy is based on objective, consistently applied criteria. Employers must maintain clear records to demonstrate fairness if challenged.

The full case can be found here:
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2025/april/adj-00031700.html