ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00001717

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

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 12/04/2016

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael Hayes

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and the abovementioned Act, 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 submits that he was unfairly dismissed ostensibly by reason of redundancy however his dismissal was orchestrated and contrived to facilitate the employment of the MD’s wife. He was employed as business development manager, took on additional roles and cleaned up a big mess. The respondent enjoyed a significant increase in its turnover as a result of his efforts and use of his contacts. The initial heavy costs will be returned in the mid-term. Additionally the respondent carries €300,000 in stale debtors. The complainant feels that he was duped in that he was assured by the MD that he had a job for as long as he liked with the respondent in January 2014. Additional drivers were employed and he suffered abuse from the MD when he sought a review of his package.

Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:

The respondent submits that the complainant was engaged as business development manager on the 1^st of April 2014 and that he was dismissed by reason of redundancy on the 16^th of October 2015. On foot of poor financial results for the year ending 31^st of December 2014 a review of all aspects of the business was undertaken and a decision to restructure was ultimately taken. The respondent decided to carry on the business with fewer employees and would require the work to be done by other employees (graph provided). Three at risk roles were identified and ultimately the role of business development manager was selected not because the complainant was the last person to join the company but on the basis of objective factors related to the needs of the respondent and skills retention. The communication process was conducted sensitively and the complainant was afforded the opportunity to meet the respondent to discuss “anything during the course of his notice”.

Decision:

I am satisfied that it was incumbent on the respondent to take appropriate measures to protect its business in the circumstances described in the instant case and that it was justified in seeking to reorganise the way in which it carried out its business. The selection process was reasonable in all the circumstances and therefore I find that the complaint is not well founded.

Dated:   9^th September 2016