Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Kevin  Petrie

Custodian Print Management Consultancy Limited Custodian Print Consultancy

Representatives

Greg Ryan Greg Ryan Solicitors

Conor O'Gorman IBEC

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-00035331-001

19/03/2020

The Complainant submitted detailed submissions in advance of the hearing.

The Complainant commenced with the Respondent in 2009. He was a senior designer. In time more and more demands were placed on the role so more people were brought in to assist. That was in or around 2011. At that point the Complainant became a senior manager. His role was continually evolving. He completed several courses whilst working for the Respondent and was the holder of a FETAC qualification in advanced web design. 

At the time of the alleged redundancy the Complainant was employed on the An Post account. In or around autumn 2019 the Complainant was informed that his job was at risk of redundancy. He also received a letter from the Respondent setting out the possible redundancy situation. The letter stated that the Complainant’s role was at risk due to the fact that the An Post had shifted their focus from a graphic design for print model to a digital multi -channel focus. The Complainant took issue with this and that is set out in correspondence between the parties in late 2019/ early 2020.  The complainant alleges that the proposed restructure of the team was fundamentally flawed. The complainant accepts that he was given the opportunity to apply for the new rules on the restructured team. He did apply for and interviewed for the position of art director and video director / motion graphics. He was not successful for either position. Complainant states that he was in a position to demonstrate ability to fulfil all of the criteria for those roles. He was vastly experienced in the area. The Complainant alleges that the interview process was flawed. The questions asked were bizarre. The Complainant alleges that it was always the Respondent’s intention to dismiss him and that they used the redundancy situation to disguise that. The person who was successful at interview is now doing exactly what the Complainant did when he was employed by the Respondent.

The Complainant found it difficult to secure new employment. It took him 18 months to get a new job. He secured freelance work for 2 to 3 days a week. That was in February 2021.  

The Respondent submitted detailed submissions prior to the hearing.

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent from 2009 in the role of designer. The Respondent denies that the Complainant was ever a manager.

In 2019 the Respondent’s contract with An Post was due for renewal. The Complainant along with his colleagues were advised that this could result in the Respondent losing the contract and consequently the Complainant and his colleagues would TUPE to the successful tenderer. By email in September 2019 the Complainant was advised that the roles were likely to change following the  tender process. He was also informed that it would be likely that 3 new roles would replace his then current position. The Complainant was informed that he could interview for the new roles. In mid November the Complainant was formally advised that the Respondent’s tender was successful however due to the changing needs of the client, the role of the Complainant was now at risk of redundancy and that three new rules would be put in place going forward. The Complainant was invited to interview for those roles. The Complainant applied for the positions and was interviewed for them. His applications were not successful. He was offered a role in design, but he declined the offer. Consequently, on the 19th of December 2019 that Complainant’s redundancy was confirmed. He was paid €12,924 for his redundancy. The Complainant did not work his full notice period as he was certified unfit for work. 

The Complainant is claiming that he was unfairly selected for redundancy in the absence of any fair procedures and/or process.

S 6(3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, if an employee was dismissed due to redundancy but the circumstances constituting the redundancy applied equally to one or more other employees in similar employment with the same employer who have not been dismissed, and either—

(a) the selection of that employee for dismissal resulted wholly or mainly from one or more of the matters specified in subsection (2) of this section or another matter that would not be a ground justifying dismissal, or

(b) he was selected for dismissal in contravention of a procedure (being a procedure that has been agreed upon by or on behalf of the employer and by the employee or a trade union, or an excepted body under the Trade Union Acts, 1941 and 1971, representing him or has been established by the custom and practice of the employment concerned) relating to redundancy and there were no special reasons justifying a departure from that procedure,

then the dismissal shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to be an unfair dismissal.”

The Complainant was put on notice of the potential of a redundancy situation in September 2019. Following the tender process, he was put on notice of the proposed changes necessary to carry out the client’s contract. He was informed what the new roles would be. He was given a detail description of the criteria. He was invited for interview. He did interview. He was not successful. He was offered a different role in the design department. He declined it.

I find that the Respondent’s process was open, fair and transparent. The Complainant was consulted at every stage and was given an opportunity to respond. He was invited to interview for the new roles and in addition was offered a different role in design. I can find no flaw in the Respondent’s process. Accordingly, the complaint fails.

The Complaint fails.