Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

{An Office Manager}

{A Service Company}

Representatives

self 

John Barry Management Support Services (Ireland) Ltd

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-00031997-001

05/11/2019

The Complainant was employed as an office manager with the Respondent from 10th February 1997 to 10th May 2019.

The Complainant worked as an office manager with the company since February 1997. She was head hunted by the Directors. The Complainant is responsible for recruitment, payroll and delegating work to staff. She also generates more fee income than other sales staff. For the past ten years the Directors reside abroad. In 2017 a credit controller was appointed general manager.

The General Manager insisted the Complainant commenced work at 9am although she had always started worked at 9.30am, and this was agreed with the Directors. This was due to a medical condition. She was told if she did not conform her salary would be docked. The Complainant said most of the staff worked 20 hours per week and also required flexibility on time keeping, often making up time later in the day as many are single parents. The Complainant sought to resolve the matter and said she would see if she could arrange to work earlier. She was told if her time-keeping did not improve she would be given warnings.

The Manager immediately downgraded the Complainant’s management role and responsibilities possibly aiming to force her resignation. She was excluded from payroll information. She raised her concerns with the Director but he was not interested. The Complainant has a medical condition which progressed. She was scheduled for six procedures/operations which took place at the end of 2018 and in 2019.

In January 2019 the Complainant’s sick-pay was drastically cut while on sick-leave which is not allowed by her contract of employment. In February 2019 while on sick-leave and without any consultation the Complainant was informed she was being made redundant by telephone call.

The Complainant met the Manager on the 1st March 2019 when her selection for redundancy was discussed and figures for statutory redundancy given. The decision had already been taken. The Manager said there was a serious financial situation as there were months of continued losses. The financial details were not forthcoming and three new staff had been recruited for the company. The recent accounts filed showed a healthy financial position. The company had successfully come through a recession and demand was recovering. The Complainant was 61 years and asked the Manager about her future as she has no pension.

The Complainant believes the consultation process was a sham as the consultation process commenced after she was informed of her redundancy. At a meeting on 12th March 2019 the Manager admitted the writing was on the wall for the office manager’s future with the company when he was appointed.

On 10th May 2019 the Complainant was made redundant, without any pension and without any thanks.

The Respondent says the Complainant was terminated solely on grounds of redundancy and does not constitute an unfair dismissal.

The Respondent is a small company with 10 staff, 3 who are part-time. The Complainant was employed as a Co-ordinator/Liaison Officer. Her role evolved into an office manager and her primary function was supervision of staff.

In early 2019 the company began a restructuring process in an attempt to reduce costs and put it into profitability. The Manager thought it would be necessary to remove two staff to obtain savings in wages and discussed this with the Director.

The Manager received HR advice regarding redundancies and called a staff meeting on 28th February 2019. At the meeting he told staff cost savings were necessary and offered voluntary redundancy. He explained if the savings were not met through voluntary redundancy, compulsory redundancies may be necessary. Two other staff sought voluntary redundancy.

On the same day the Complainant telephoned the Manager to say she had heard about the redundancies and asked was this true. He confirmed this and said all staff were on notice of redundancy. On 1st March 2019 the Complainant attended the office and was informed the role of office manager was being made redundant and no alternative position had been identified. A second consultation meeting was held on 12th March 2019. The Complainant would not discuss the agenda. She had no suggestions in relation to alternative positions and sought to enhance the redundancy package. The Complainant said the company was in a good financial position and sought financial details. The meeting became confrontational. Details of the Complainant’s entitlements were sent to her on 12th March and her redundancy confirmed on 15th March 2019.

The Respondent relies on S6 4 (c ) of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 as amended and says where redundancy is wholly or mainly the reason for termination of employment of the employee the dismissal is not an unfair dismissal. The Respondent has made a decision to carry on its business with fewer employees in line with S7 2 (c ) of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 as amended. The Respondent says there were 2 part-time employees made redundant as well and there was no alternative position the Complainant could fill. The Respondent did not believe any of the roles were suitable, as there would be a significant reduction in pay and the sales roles were critical given the finances of the company and the period required for training and adjustment for the Complainant. The role of office manager was subsumed into the organisation and tasks distributed, which caused least disruption and provided the necessary savings.

I have heard and considered carefully the oral and written submissions of the parties.

Section 6 (1) of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977-2015 states subject to the provisions of this section, the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act to be an unfair dismissal unless, having regard to all the circumstances, there were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal…

(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 the 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

(a)    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 statute or instrument made under statute….

Section 6 (1) (7) of the Act provides without prejudice to the generality of subsection 1 of this section, in determining if a dismissal is an unfair dismissal regard may be had, if the Adjudication Officer as the case may be, considers it appropriate to do so-

(a)    to the reasonableness of the conduct, or otherwise (whether by act or omission) of the employer in relation to the dismissal …….

The onus lies on the Respondent to show the dismissal results wholly or mainly from redundancy. The Respondent relies on S7 2 (c) of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 whereby the employer has decided to carry on the business with fewer or no employees, whether by requiring the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before her dismissal) to be done by other employees or otherwise.

The Complainant has been employed over 20 years as an office manager and had been on sick-leave for a period awaiting treatment when she was made redundant. She is 61 years of age.

The Respondent CEO has given evidence in relation to financial concerns regarding the company in the period leading up to the Complainant’s redundancy in 2019. He provided evidence on a 9-month basis comparing 2019 figures with the same months in 2018. However, the filed accounts of the company show a small profit increasing annually since 2016 amounting to over 100,000 euro in 2018. Satisfactory financial statements have not been provided by the Respondent in order to substantiate the concerns of the CEO regarding the company’s alleged deteriorating financial position. The Respondent had also taken on three new employees in the previous year, two of whom were made redundant at the same time as the Complainant.

The growing numbers of employees and company profits disclosed do not accord with the Respondent’s alleged financial concerns. The Complainant has long service and experience in sales. She has no pension. No consideration was given to the Complainant’s redeployment nor alternatives to redundancy in consultation with the Complainant.

I find the Complainant was unfairly dismissed on substantive and procedural grounds. Given the Complainant’s age and health she may find it more difficult to find full-time work. The Complainant was earning €46,000.00 annually. In all the circumstances, I find it is just and equitable to award the Complainant €69,000 euro financial loss.

I find the Complainant was unfairly dismissed on substantive and procedural grounds. Given the Complainant’s age and health she may find it more difficult to find full-time work. The Complainant was earning €46,000.00 annually. In all the circumstances, I find it is just and equitable to award the Complainant €69,000 euro financial loss.

Evidence of financial loss