The Complainant claims that she was unfairly dismissed stating that she was unfairly selected for redundancy from her employment with the Respondent Employer. She was employed with the Respondent Employer since September 2010 and she fulfilled an administrative role predominantly dealing with travel arrangements or coordinating travel arrangements for the worldwide employees of the Respondent Employer. In around September 2011, the Employer moved partially to an automated system in respect of dealing with staff's travel arrangements. The company called for voluntary redundancies from the Applicants Department and if none were forthcoming then the policy of the employer was on redundancy on the basis of “last-in first-out”. One member of staff took voluntary redundancy and the selection of a member of the Department for compulsory redundancy was not required. The Complainant’s Department moved to a fully automated system in early 2015 and the Complainant and her 3 fellow staff members of that department were told that redundancies were inevitable. A representative from the Human Resources Department which is based in the UK advised them that it would be the same as 3 years ago; voluntary redundancies otherwise it would compulsory redundancy selected on a “last-in first-out” and the redundancy package would be the same as was 3 years ago. Alternative employment for the complainant’s manager was found within the company and her female colleague ( one of the three left in the department)successfully applied for another role within the company, which left two staff members remaining in the Department in early 2015, the Complainant and a male colleague. The new automated system was to come in operation in around March 2015. In around the end of February 2015 (27th) a conference telephone call from the Global Travel Manager who indicated that there was only one position remaining within the existing Department and there would be a three-month assessment period for both remaining employees to ascertain who was more suitable to remain within the Department and who was to be made redundant. As this time the male employee had already been selected by the Global Travel Manager months before to begin a project linked to the new automated system which, The complainant alleges put him at a distinct advantage to her detriment. The complainant conceded that she was asked to work on the new system with her male colleague but she declined as she was too busy with her own work. During this time the Complainant was left handling the Department nearly single-handed and was not given the same opportunities as her male colleague to become familiar with the new automated system. In fact no three-month assessment period took place instead both roles were made redundant and a new role was created in which both remaining employees were asked to interview for. The complainant was unsuccessful and subsequently made redundant. The complainant was offer two different roles with in the company but she declined both for personal reasons.

The respondent states that the Complainant was dismissed by reason of redundancy such that no claim arises under Section 6 of the Act. The Respondent submits that no claim can be advanced under Section 6(3) of the Act as all employees in the same role as the complainant were made redundant.

The complainant commenced employment with the respondent as a Travel Coordinator on 6 September 2010. She was based in the Respondent’s offices in Dublin. The Respondent operates in the logistics supply chain business. It handles, processes, and manages the inbound and outbound flow of materials and products for producers and OEMs across a number of industrial sectors. It provides services to technology sector clients for whom it manages the supply chain of products to their customers. It also provides services to clients in the automotive industry. Within Ireland, the Respondent has offices in Dublin (128 employees who work predominantly in the IT space), Limerick (call centre employing approx. 45 employees) and Cork (9 employees).

The Complainant worked in the Travel Department. As a Travel Coordinator, her role was to book the travel and accommodation for all employees worldwide who submitted their travel requests to the Travel Department globally. The Claimant worked alongside two other Travel Coordinators and she reported to the Travel Manager. The Complainant’s monthly salary was €2939.31; her weekly wage was €678.30.

In 2011, the Complainant’s and her colleagues were advised of a decision to outsource work currently undertaken by the Travel Department. This work was to be outsourced on a global basis to an entity called Egencia. A large project had been undertaken by the Respondent which included soliciting proposals from travel agencies to evaluate their offerings. The Respondent had selected and negotiated a competitive package with Egencia which would deliver significant savings. Under the new model, there would be self booking portals for employees to book their own travel arrangements.

The Travel Department team were advised in October 2011 that work undertaken for the Northern America region would initially be outsourced. One voluntary redundancy was offered and one of the Complainant’s colleagues opted for this. In correspondence of 18 October, 2011 it was confirmed to the complainant that she would continue in her role. She was also advised that the outsourcing would be revisited again and that in such an event that it could result in headcount reduction. She was advised that if she had any queries to raise these to her manager or to the HR manager.

In 2014, the decision was taken to continue with further outsourcing of work to Egencia. In the interim period, there had been a new hire onto the Complainant’s team as a result of the increased travel following the acquisition of Compuspa. This employee had commenced on 8, April 2013 as a Travel Coordinator. On 13 November 2014, the Regional HR Manager – UK & Ireland met with the Travel Department team to advise that the further outsourcing would be proceeding and that therefore a reduction in headcount was imminent. She explained to the team that she was not in a position at that time to advice on the specific headcount reduction and would update on same. The team were advised that the headcount would reduce from 3 to 2 or 3 to 1. The Complainant queried her redundancy entitlement at this time and was provided with same on a without prejudice basis via email of 15 November 2011.

In December 2014, the Travel Manager’s position was removed and the incumbent moved fulltime in to an Executive Assistant role (Previously the Travel Manager had undertaken similar duties in conjunction with her travel manager duties). This resulted in the Travel Coordinators’ reporting line changing to report to the Strategic Sourcing Manager. Various staff wide communications followed in 4 February 2015 and 27 February 2015 wherein the launch dates and training sessions for staff who would be using the Egencia system were outlined. The go live date for moving all travellers in Europe to the new system was 1 March 2015. As a result, the reducing need for Travel Coordinators which had been previously advised was becoming more apparent. The Complainant and her colleagues were at this time undertaking duties associated with the launch of the new system alongside day-to- day management of travel requests.

In February 2015, a positon arose as a Global IT purchasing specialist based in Dublin. The Complainant and the two other Travel Coordinators applied for this role. One of the other Travel Coordinators was successful. The Complainant was advised of this on 13 February 2015 and she did not query this decision. Her colleague commenced in that role at the end of March. The Claimant and her remaining Travel Coordinator colleague sought information at this time regarding the planned headcount reduction. They were informed that headcount would be assessed once the Egencia system launched and that any headcount decision would be impacted by how well the rollout went and by the uptake of usage of the new system. The rollout of Egencia was delayed to 30 March 2015 due to system glitches. On 1 May 2015, Two managers spoke with the two remaining Travel

Coordinators to update them following the roll out of Egencia in Europe. They were advised

that with effect from 1 June 2015 that the two remaining Travel Coordinator roles would be made redundant. They were further advised that one new role would be put in place. Both Travel Coordinators were advised that they could apply for the new role which was a Travel Analyst. Both received a copy of the Job Description on 1 May. The role of Travel Analyst role involved preparing global travel reporting on all levels and in all regions (monthly KPI dashboard and issuing to travel manager, assessing travel behaviours, managing suppliers). The Travel Analyst would be responsible for all aspects of travel in all regions and the administration of Egencia portals across all regions. The two Travel Coordinators were also issued notice of redundancy that would expire on 1 June 2015 and advised the Respondent would continue to consult with them and provide them with details of any vacancies arising during their notice period. That was done by letter of 20 May. Both Travel Coordinators applied for the new Travel Analyst role and the interviews took place on 15 May. On 19 May, the HR manager advised the Claimant that she had been unsuccessful. The Complainant did not challenge or query this outcome. The HR manager also spoke to the claimant regarding alternative roles. The HR Manager had already explored whether it was possible for work currently being undertaken in Limerick to be undertaken remotely in Dublin. Unfortunately this was not a viable option and she advised the Complainant of same. The HR Manager also informed the Complainant of a part time role in finance which the Complainant stated she was not interested in.

The Complainant informed her HR Manager at this time that her preference was to remain at home

during the remaining portion of her notice period, which she agreed to facilitate. It was agreed that the Complainant would remain in touch over the next weeks and should a role become available that the Complainant would be advised of same. HR Manager confirmed to the Complainant that in the absence of an alternative role, that her position would terminate by reason of redundancy on 1 June 2015.

The HR manager spoke to the Complainant on 26 May and the Complainant informed her that she had signed up with recruitment agencies. On 1 June, The HR Mangaer contacted the Complainant to

discuss a Customer Service opportunity in the Limerick office. However she did not wish to consider this role due to the location. She was then advised that as no other redeployment opportunities had materialised and as her notice of redundancy expired on that day, 1 June, that her employment would terminate on the basis of redundancy with effect from that date.

The Complainant was paid an enhanced redundancy payment of €18,273.00 which is custom and practice in the Respondent entity. She also received all outstanding salary up to her date of leaving plus any holiday which had been accrued but not taken. On 5 June the claimant sought her P45 which was provided. She did not seek to appeal the decision to make her position redundant or to raise a grievance/complaint in relation to her unsuccessful interview for the Travel Analyst role.

The Respondent argued that the Complainant was not unfairly dismissed as her dismissal resulted wholly and mainly from the redundancy of the post of Travel Coordinator. The Complainant was initially advised of the plan to outsource the work of the travel department in 2011 and thus she was on notice from that time of the implications for her role. The Respondent advised the Complainant in November 2014 of the decision to continue the outsourcing and the likely implications for her role. The Complainant was subsequently in regular contact with her manager as the roll out of the new system got underway and employees transitioned to using the new system. The Complainant did not at any juncture during this extended period challenge the decision to make her position redundant. She was afforded the opportunity to apply for alternative roles that arose and to raise any concerns or views. Thus the Respondent submits that a very fair and thorough consultation procedure was adhered to in the lead up to the redundancy.

The Respondent disputed the allegation in the Complainant’s complaint form that a ‘three month assessment period’ was instigated in February 2015 for the remaining Travel Coordinators for the purpose of determining who was to remain in the department. In the first instance, it was May 2015 when the new position of Travel Analyst was advised and job description provided. Further, the Respondent used an interview to select the successful candidate. The Respondent also disputes the claim that the Complainant’s colleague had been selected to begin a project related to Egencia in the lead up to the redundancies. It was the case that the work had been shared across the two remaining team members and there was an equal opportunity for both to work on Egencia system. It was submitted that the one and only reason the Complainant’s colleague succeeded in securing the Travel Analyst role was due to his experience in another previous employment with data analytics and that further more he demonstrated at interview that he had a much clearer understanding and future vision for the role than the Complainant . This colleague had not been selected for a project as alleged and neither was he afforded an advantage on the Complainant as alleged.

The Respondent argued that In relation to an allegation of unfair selection, in the WRC complaint form that the Complainant has confirmed that “both roles were made redundant and a new role was

created in which both remaining employees were asked to interview”. Therefore it is submitted that the Complainant cannot pursue a complaint under Section 6(3) as she herself has confirmed that there are no other employees in similar employment with the same employer who have not been dismissed. They stated that there is no agreed or established procedure for redundancy selection in the Respondent entity and thus a breach of same cannot therefore have occurred.