WRC held employee’s dismissal was unfair, finding the purported redundancy was not genuine but arose from his refusal to accept new contractual terms, as the work continued and his role effectively remained unchanged.

The Complainant said he was unfairly dismissed in March 2021 after refusing to sign a non-negotiable 2021 contract that worsened his terms. He joined in 2006 on a five-day, €937 weekly pay contract but a 2009 change reduced his pay by €100 (which he contested for years). In January 2021, the employer presented a new contract with increased damage penalties, a flexibility clause that could require Sunday work, uncertain weekly hours and 4-day pay patterns. He met HR, proposed amendments, and said he would have signed if those changes were accepted. He argued the dismissal was not a genuine redundancy as the work remained, the market was improving, and only he and three colleagues who refused the new terms were selected. He maintained the “redundancy” targeted his contract, not his role.

The Respondent denied unfair dismissal and said the termination resulted from a genuine redundancy driven by post-2008 market collapse, Brexit and structural change in logistics. It outlined long negotiations with SIPTU, a 2009 pay restructure, and a 2013 standard contract. The Complainant refused to accept those terms despite mediation, Labour Court engagement and settlement of a 2018 breach-of-contract suit in December 2020. In January 2021, the company issued a new contract maintaining salary and aligning flexibility, travel and damage provisions with business needs. Further, it warned that refusal would render the old contract redundant. The Complainant refused. A redundancy notice issued on 18 February 2021. The Respondent argued it acted reasonably over years to retain him but could not sustain pre-2009 terms.

The Adjudicating Officer found the dismissal was not a genuine redundancy. The business still required the same work; staffing remained stable and the Complainant was effectively replaced. The “change” cited was the Complainant’s refusal to accept new contractual terms, not a diminished need for his role. As such, the redundancy defence failed. They also did not process the termination through a disciplinary route or identify another substantial ground under s.6 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977. Considering mitigation, the Adjudicator awarded €7,400 compensation.

Employers should:                

•  Separate business change from contractual change. A redundancy must be impersonal and tied to reduced requirements for work of a particular kind. If the work continues at similar levels, do not badge refusal to accept new terms as “redundancy”. Instead, use a clear change-management process with consultation, objective rationale, and documented alternatives.          
   
  
• If an employee refuses new terms, avoid ultimatums. Consider agreed variations, buy-outs, or redeployment. Where conduct or capability becomes the true issue, follow a fair disciplinary or capability process with full procedural safeguards, not a redundancy route. Ensure decision-makers are independent, reasons are recorded, and appeals are meaningful. 
   
  
• For litigation risk, preserve a complete paper trail. When offering “suitable alternative employment”, specify unchanged pay, duties, location, and hours. Also, address perceived detriments in writing. Consistency across the workforce and timely engagement are your best defences.

The full case can be found here.