ADJ-00001942

ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00001942

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

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 05/07/2016

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 was employed by the respondent from 10^th of October 2006 until the 15^th of October 2015 initially as a graphic designer and more recently (since 1^st of January 2014) as global head of creative. The employment was terminated by way of redundancy and it is submitted that the dismissal was unfair for the following reasons. The respondent failed to comply with its statutory obligation in that it failed to act reasonably in a number of aspects. There was no genuine consultation process and the matter had been finalised before the initial meeting on the 7^th of September 2015. The respondent was unaware of the full extent of the complainant’s role and the significance of certain parts of his role (details provided). The respondent although legally obliged to do so, failed to consider possible alternatives or justify the same. Additionally the complainant’s role was the only one considered for redundancy despite the existence of similarities and task sharing between his role and that of the ‘global head of brand’. He asked if a graphic design role could be offered to him but no consideration was given to this very real alternative. It failed to advise him of his right to appeal the decision to dismiss in breach of his right to fair procedure and pressurised him into filling the RP50 prior to his leaving the premises. He was placed on garden leave for the duration of his notice period despite the lack of provision therefor or indeed for payment in lieu of notice in his contract of employment. He wanted to work out his notice and felt that the respondent was punishing him in the circumstances. The respondent failed to assist the complainant in his efforts to find alternative employment by insisting that he return its equipment prior to the termination date. He was obliged to purchase computer equipment to complete his portfolio

Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:

The respondent submits that the complainant was dismissed by way of redundancy following a structural review of the business commencing in or around June 2015. He was informed at a meeting on the 7^th of September 2015 that it was considering the outsourcing of design “which would give access to a diverse and evolving range of design skills and enable the level of resource required through the year to be more closely matched to the varying work load we experience” thereby putting on notice that his position was ‘at risk’ of redundancy. He was advised that no decision had been made and that alternatives would be explored including suggestions should he wish to make them in relation to the restructuring. Following a catch-up meeting on the 11^th inst. a follow-up meeting was held on the 15^th inst. A number of additional issues were addressed at the meeting including the fact that an e-commerce role had been made redundant in the US. It was explained to him that the role of graphic designer (recently recruited) was a significantly junior role and that neither of the graphic designer roles were at risk of redundancy. The input of the MD was sought at this stage. The MD indicated that he wished to proceed with the process which had been initiated. A further meeting on the 18^th inst. confirmed the redundancy and outlined the associated terms and conditions.

Decision:

I am satisfied that the redundancy in this case fell within the parameters of a genuine restructure of the respondents approach to its business. Additionally I am satisfied that the complainant was afforded adequate consultation and a reasonable (in the context of fair procedure) opportunity to make his input in relation to possible alternative. The respondent did in my view meet its statutory obligation to act reasonably.                                                                                                                                              The complaint is not well founded.

Dated:   07 February 2017