Redundancy claim failed due to absence of dismissal.

The Complainant had been employed by the Respondent as a Duty Manager since May 2017 and had been on certified sick leave from December 2023. He contended that during his absence, the Respondent fundamentally restructured its operations and eliminated his role. He asserted that his core duties had been reassigned to a Supervisor, who was subsequently promoted to Duty Manager, while the Supervisor role was then filled by another employee. The Complainant maintained that this sequence of events demonstrated a clear redundancy situation within the meaning of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967. He stated that despite repeated written requests, including a formal 48-hour notice, the Respondent refused to acknowledge redundancy and instead sought to initiate a capability process. The Complainant believed this approach was designed to circumvent statutory redundancy obligations. He argued that his role no longer existed in practice and sought statutory redundancy based on his length of service, together with compensation for the Respondent’s alleged failure to follow fair redundancy procedures.

The Respondent denied that any redundancy situation existed and submitted that the complaint was fundamentally misconceived. It asserted that the Complainant remained employed and had not been dismissed, a prerequisite for any entitlement under the Redundancy Payments Act 1967. The Respondent relied on statutory provisions requiring termination of employment before redundancy could arise and highlighted the Complainant’s own confirmation that he remained employed while on long-term sick leave. It explained that during the Complainant’s absence, duties were temporarily redistributed for operational continuity, which did not amount to redundancy. The Respondent stated that the Duty Manager role remained available to the Complainant upon medical clearance. It further outlined that it had followed appropriate procedures by arranging occupational health assessments and inviting the Complainant to a capability review meeting, with termination noted only as a potential outcome. The Respondent maintained that no dismissal, actual or constructive, had occurred and requested dismissal of the claim.

The Adjudicating Officer considered whether the Complainant met the statutory criteria for entitlement to a redundancy payment under the Redundancy Payments Act 1967. Central to this assessment was whether the Complainant had been dismissed by reason of redundancy. Having examined the evidence, the Adjudicator found that the Complainant remained an employee on certified sick leave and that his contract of employment had not been terminated. While the Complainant believed his role had been reassigned, the Respondent had confirmed that the position remained available to him. The Adjudicator noted that redundancy payments arise only where dismissal has occurred and that temporary redistribution of duties during an employee’s absence did not, of itself, constitute redundancy. As no dismissal had taken place, the statutory threshold under s.7 of the Act had not been met. Accordingly, the Adjudicator found the complaint to be misconceived and not well founded.

Employers should:

• Be aware that redundancy entitlements under Irish law are triggered by dismissal, not by organisational change alone. Where an employee remains employed, including during long-term sick leave, employers should exercise caution before engaging in discussions that could be construed as redundancy-related.  
  
  
• Follow a structured capability process supported by independent occupational health assessments. Engagement with the employee should be reasonable, transparent, and focused on medical capacity and future options rather than predetermined outcomes. Employers should ensure that correspondence avoids ambiguity that could give rise to claims of implied dismissal or redundancy. 
  
  
• Maintain a clear distinction between redundancy and incapability procedures. Where restructuring occurs, employers must carefully assess whether a role has genuinely ceased to exist or whether operational cover has merely been arranged. Early legal advice, consistent communication, and adherence to statutory definitions will significantly reduce exposure to misconceived claims and ensure defensible decision-making before the WRC. 
  

The full case can be found here.