WRC held that the redundancy was not genuine because the Respondent continued the same work on lower pay and failed to conduct a fair consultation or selection process, making the dismissal unfair and awarding €34,435 compensation.

The Complainant submitted that her dismissal was not a genuine redundancy but a mechanism used by the Respondent to impose inferior contractual terms. She had worked as a teacher from late August 2022 and earned €694.25 per week. She stated that the teaching work continued after her dismissal and that the Respondent had advertised new teaching roles at lower hourly rates during the redundancy process. She argued that this showed the business did not have a reduced requirement for teachers but instead wanted to replace existing staff with lower-paid employees. She further contended that the consultation process was not genuine because key changes, including a revised timetable and reduced breaks, had already been implemented and described as non-negotiable. She said no objective selection process or matrix had been applied and that the proposed alternative employment was simply the same work on materially reduced terms.

The Respondent stated that, following a change in ownership in November 2024, it inherited a business in serious financial difficulty with liabilities of €678,673, including €425,123 owed to Revenue. It argued that the existing operating model was unsustainable and that restructuring was essential to keep the company solvent. The Respondent said it had commenced consultation in January 2025, notified the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment in February 2025, and engaged with Unite, the union regarding a proposed rescue plan. It maintained that reduced teaching rates, revised timetables and operational changes were required for the survival of the business. The Respondent further asserted that the Complainant accepted redundancy before consultation had concluded and that alternative employment had been explored through the offer of revised contracts. It denied that the redundancy was a sham and argued that the Complainant had failed to adequately mitigate her loss after dismissal.

The Adjudicator found that the Respondent had failed to establish a genuine redundancy situation. While financial difficulty was accepted as part of the background, the evidence showed that teaching work continued and that the Respondent advertised new teaching roles at lower hourly rates during the consultation process. This brought the case within the concerns addressed by s.7(2A) of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967, where employees are replaced by others performing essentially the same functions on materially inferior terms. The Adjudicator also found that consultation was not meaningful because operational changes were implemented before the process concluded and were presented as non-negotiable. There was no objective selection process, matrix or transparent criteria. The purported alternative employment was merely the same work on reduced terms. The dismissal was therefore unfair. Reinstatement or re-engagement was inappropriate, and compensation of €34,435 was awarded after a 20% mitigation reduction.

Employers should:                

• Not use redundancy as a device to reduce pay and conditions where the underlying work continues. Where roles are abolished but substantially the same work is then offered to new or existing staff on materially inferior terms, the employer risks a finding that the redundancy is not genuine.        
   
  
• Avoid implementing key operational changes before consultation concludes or presenting proposals as non-negotiable. A meaningful process requires disclosure of relevant business information, engagement with employee or union responses, consideration of alternatives, and clear records showing that decisions were not predetermined. 
   
  
• Use objective selection criteria, a transparent matrix and documented scoring. Any alternative role offered should be genuinely suitable and not simply the same job on worse terms.

The full case can be found here.