Complainant

Respondent

Parties

A Worker

A company

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00010293-001

17/03/2017

The complainant was employed by the respondent since March, 2013. In June, 2013 she was offered the opportunity to work for the respondent parent company. Her role involved working on the company accounts both in the Republic of Ireland and in Northern Ireland. On the 4^th November, 2016 the Operations Director called the complainant into his office and said that he had bad news for her. He explained to her that there was a possibility that her role was going to be made redundant. She asked about her work in Northern Ireland. Her question was dismissed abruptly. She felt intimidate so she said nothing else about it. On the 24^th November a meeting was called to discuss the redundancy situation. At the end of that meeting she was told that the accounts were being outsourced and that her role as a result was being made redundant.   She expressed the view that the entire accountancy department cannot be outsourced. Somebody is needed on site to do the day to day accounts. The complainant was told that she could finish up that day. She was paid notice, holidays and statutory redundancy.

The complainant secured employment in January, 2017. She left that employment in April and commenced a new job on the 12^th May, 2017. She is earning more or less the same as she did with the respondent. The complainant had no documentary evidence in relation to her efforts to mitigate her loss.

The respondent, for financial reasons, made the decision to outsource its accountancy department. The accountancy firm installed a new accounting software package which carried out the functions the complainant was doing.   It soon became apparent that the complainant’s role was redundant.

The respondent employed the services of a HR consultant in relation to the potential redundancy. By letter dated the 4^th November, 2016, the complainant was put on notice of the redundancy. Therein, the complainant was invited to a meeting so that she could discuss any suggestions she had on how to avoid the redundancy. The meeting was held two weeks later .The complaint made no suggestions. She accepted the redundancy situation. She was then given a breakdown of the redundancy payment, holiday pay and notice entitlements.

By letter dated the 24^th November, 2016 the complainant’s position was formally made redundant. She was offered the opportunity to appeal the decision but she declined the offer.

Section 6 (4)

“ Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, not to be an unfair dismissal, if it results wholly or mainly from one or more of the following:

(a) the capability, competence or qualifications of the employee for performing work of the kind which he was employed by the employer to do,

(b) the conduct of the employee

(c) the redundancy of the employee, and

(d) the employee being unable to work or continue to work in the position which he held without contravention (by him or by his employer) of a duty or restriction imposed by or under any statute or instrument made under statute.

I find that a genuine redundancy situation existed within the respondent entity. The respondent has satisfied its legal obligation to put the complainant on notice of the pending redundancy and to have a consultation process during which the complainant could have made suggestions on how to avoid the redundancy. I am further satisfied that the complainant was offered the opportunity to appeal the decision, which opportunity she did not avail of.

In all of the circumstances, I find that the complainant’s employment ended due to a redundancy situation and was therefore not unfair within the meaning of Section 6(4)(c ).