The Claimant commenced employment with the Respondent organisation in 1998 as a software engineer. In 2003, he changed role to a technical consultant and was then promoted to senior technical consultant.
Evidence was adduced that the Respondent needed to make financial cuts amounting to €1.5 million. An Executive Leadership Team was created comprising of senior managers. They commenced a consultation process which invited the employees to give their views on cost cutting measures. Numerous suggestions were proffered and implemented resulting in a saving of €900,000.00.
The Respondent stated that at the material time there were several employees who simply had little or no work to do. Once the decision had been made that redundancies were necessary the respondent developed a matrix system to assess whether employees were to be made redundant and acted swiftly when applying that matrix to its employees. Decisions were made to bring employees working abroad home earlier as a cost saving measure. The organisation ultimately implemented twenty redundancies, one in the United States, sixteen in Ireland and three in Poland.
On the 10 June 2009, the Claimant received an email from the Chief Operations Officer regarding his repatriation to Ireland. The Respondent claims that the Claimant was informed of his redundancy by letter dated 13 July 2009 which outlined his redundancy package and the conditions attached thereto. They also claim that they offered the Claimant the opportunity to review the decision. The Respondent also arranged an outplacement service with Springbox to assist him and provided a list of preferred recruitment agencies in order to help him secure alternative employment. It was further noted that no one appealed their redundancy decision.
On the other hand the Claimant claims that when he was informed of his selection for redundancy, he queried why, but did not receive a response. He was informed that savings had to be made but the scoring system was not discussed with him. He notes that he was given the opportunity to appeal if he so wished but believed there was no point as months previously he had been notified that his contract was coming to an end. In relation to the job offered to him, he claims that the offer was vague and that there was no concrete proof of such offer, therefore he was not interested in pursuing it.
The Claimant alleged that he was unfairly selected for redundancy and relied on Section 6(3) Unfair Dismissal Act 1977 -
"Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, if an employee was dismissed due to redundancy but the circumstances constituting the redundancy applied equally to one or more other employees in similar employment with the same employer who have not been dismissed, and either —
(a) the selection of that employee for dismissal resulted wholly or mainly from one or more of the matters specified in subsection (2) of this section or another matter that would not be a ground justifying dismissal,
Or
(b) he was selected for dismissal in contravention of a procedure (being a procedure that has been agreed upon by or on behalf of the employer and by the employee or a trade union, or an excepted body under the Trade Union Acts, 1941 and 1971, representing him or has been established by the custom and practice of the employment concerned) relating to redundancy and there were no special reasons justifying a departure from that procedure, then the dismissal shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to be an unfair dismissal."
The Respondent relied on Section 6(4) (a) of the Act,
"(4) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, not to be an unfair dismissal, if it results wholly or mainly from one or more of the following:
(a) the capability, competence or qualifications of the employee for performing work of the kind which he was employed by the employer to do."
DETERMINATION
The Tribunal was satisfied that a genuine redundancy situation existed at the material time and that the Claimant was not unfairly selected for that redundancy. Accordingly the claimant’s claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977-2007 failed.
The Tribunal were of the view that the Respondent’s matrix system to determine redundancies was fair, impossible to manipulate and that there was no evidence of corruption or of a preconceived agenda to make the Claimant redundant.
Regarding the fact that the Respondent employed several new employees after the Claimant was made redundant the Tribunal was satisfied that the Claimant was offered the only position that would have been suited to his skills set. However, the Claimant turned down this position for his own personal reasons.
LEGAL REVIEW
This case shows the importance of ensuring that the following conditions are met when dismissing an employee due to redundancy:
1. There are substantial grounds justifying the dismissal;
2. The selection process observed is fair and in particular does not breach any of the statutory prohibitions or any procedures that, by agreement or through custom and practice, apply within the particular employment;
3. The employer’s conduct is reasonable.
Under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977-2007, even in circumstances where a genuine redundancy situation exists, an employee who is unfairly selected for redundancy will succeed in an unfair dismissal claim.
CONCLUSION
Where the employer is relying on redundancy as justification for the dismissal, the selection criteria to identify which roles are to become redundant is likely to be the single most complicated issue to address. An employer is under an obligation to select fairly for redundancy where the circumstances apply equally to more than one employee in similar employment.
The selection criteria applied should, as far as possible, be objectively justified and applied in a fair manner. The selection criteria must be identified and examined for fairness and objectivity at the outset of the process. There are no absolute rules as to what constitutes appropriate selection criteria, however generally it is preferable to avoid subjective criteria.
Recent decisions of the Tribunal indicate that in the current economic climate, where it is likely to prove difficult for employees to secure alternative employment, an employer is expected to go to greater lengths than ever before to satisfy the Tribunal that its conduct was reasonable.
Full Case Decision:
http://bit.ly/Jrbojs
Continue reading
We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.
Please log in to view the full article.
What you'll get:
- Help understand the ramifications of each important case from NI, GB and Europe
- Ensure your organisation's policies and procedures are fully compliant with NI law
- 24/7 access to all the content in the Legal Island Vault for research case law and HR issues
- Receive free preliminary advice on workplace issues from the employment team
Already a subscriber? Log in now or start a free trial
