ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00000598

Complaint(s)/Dispute(s) for Resolution:

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 29/02/2016

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael Hayes

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 8(1B) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977, following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).

Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:

The complainant was dismissed from his job without any prior notice or discussion on 27th October, 2015. His position in the company was that of Operations Manager. He began working with the company on the 2nd July 2012 and was dismissed ostensibly by reason of redundancy on the 27^th of October 2015. He submits that he was targeted for dismissal, for reasons that had nothing to do with any alleged redundancy situation and if there was a genuine redundancy situation he was unfairly selected.

Just prior to the dismissal the company hired a General Manager, a Setter Technician, interviewed for the position of Production Supervisor, and had paid out a salary increase to another Setter Technician. They were also paying for part time work by a Supervisor that had left the company. The claimant is well capable to perform any/all of these roles. He was given no fair procedures, no notice in direct breach of my contract, not afforded the benefit of a consultation period, not shown any selection matrix or criteria and ignominiously ushered off the premises. Protective notices that had been issued to employees were withdrawn weeks prior to his dismissal. The respondent proffered justification after the event. In essence the complainant submits that his dismissal by way of redundancy was a pretext, that his job remains in place and that it was fundamentally flawed procedurally. The whole experience has had a detrimental effect on his health.

Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:

The respondent submits that the business was in a severe downward spiral necessitating urgent remedial action and reorganisation as a result of the failure of its major customer to comply with its contractual arrangement to provide a specified level of business. It dismissed seven people the complainant being one of them. He was made aware of the situation with regard to the business. He was paid his redundancy and statutory notice. There were no suitable alternatives available to offer him. It is accepted that justification on the basis of matrix was proffered after the fact.

Issues for Decision:

Was the redundancy necessary and was it procedurally fair?

Decision:

Section 8(1B) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act.

It seems to me that the redundancy was necessary to protect the viability of the respondent’s business but that it was procedurally unfair.

I find therefore that the herein dismissal was unfair and that the complaint is well founded.

The appropriate remedy in all the circumstances is one of compensation in the amount of €35,000 (say thirty five thousand euro).

Dated:  11 May 2016