Complainant

Respondent

Parties

George  Mongey

Rehab Enterprises Limited

Representatives

SIPTU

 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-00049271-001

22/03/2022

The complainant has submitted a complaint that he was unfairly dismissed from his employment on 24th September 2021 by way of an unfair selection for redundancy.

He had been employed as a Quality Environmental Safety Officer with the respondent, a non-government employer of people with disabilities until his dismissal.

His gross annual salary was €38,250

He submitted his complaint on the 23/2/2022.

 The complainant contends that he was unfairly dismissed by reason of an unfair selection for redundancy.

His case centres on his belief that his selection was predetermined, there was bias afoot in the selection process, his role was not stand alone as asserted and the grounds for making his position redundant are unconvincing.

Evidence of the complainant given under affirmation.

The complainant commenced in the new role of Quality, Environmental and Safety Manager in October 2018 with Rehab Enterprises. Rehab Enterprises is one arm of Rehab.

Rehab Enterprises in its range of nationwide centres offers a supported integrated work environment for persons with disabilities and without disabilities with the aim of obtaining independence for the former group. It is not a profit-making enterprise and just has to break even. The respondent gets funding from the HSE. They have an extensive portfolio.

 The complainant’s job saw him have responsibility for Smiles, a network of newsagents employing persons with disabilities and placed in or adjacent to large employers. He was also responsible for Recycle logistics for the whole of the country. That operation entailed the safe disposal of IT devices. His predecessor had only looked after the recycling dimension. His job entailed getting permits from various bodies to operate the different contracts which they had, for example, with National Waste Collection. His job entailed securing International Organisation of Standardisation (ISO) certification. He is a trained auditor in ISO – the quality management system by which organisations are benchmarked. He looked after Health and Safety nationally.

 He reported to the Director not the Group Operations Manager. He occupied an advisory role for the centres. He is a member of the Engineers of Ireland. He has a level 9 qualification plus experience in the voluntary sector.

While Tallaght was his base, he had nationwide responsibilities, contrary to what the employer stated. He held monthly meetings in Health and Safety. He reported accidents. He was in charge of monitoring Covid compliance within the entire company during the pandemic. He identified the training needs of all employees in the area of Fire Safety and organised it nationally. His role discharged functions essential to the company which could not be dispensed with or reassigned to another role such as the Business Manager’s role. He also contested the contention that it was a standalone role. Therefore, a matrix for selection should have been used to select employees at risk.

Up until 2015 the respondent had a Health and Safety Officer. He left in 2015 and was not replaced.

The company sent a colleague Facilities Manager on an IT course in Sligo in 2019. He eventually transferred to a new role, Compliance Audit Manager in late 2020 before he had completed his qualification in Sligo. This job was not advertised. The complainant maintains that he could have done that role.

The complainant’s job had no grade and no salary scale. He is a not as the respondent asserts a grade 6, below the role of Compliance Audit Manager. The company ruled out a job in Cork for the complainant.

On 24 May 2021, a colleague from another facility within Rehab, a driver, said to him “I heard your role is going to be made redundant”. The colleague had heard it from two managers.

Notification that his role was at risk.

The complainant met the respondent on 25/5/21; he was told his job was at risk. The purpose of the meeting was not disclosed to him beforehand. At this meeting, he was told he was being made redundant. He told the Operations Manager and HR Representative at this meeting that a colleague had told him that he had heard that his role was to be made redundant. The Operations Manager apologised to the complainant.

The complainant clarified that there are about 12-15 drivers in the Rehab. He told the Data Protection Officer that a driver had told him. He never got an official, response on that breach.

It was hard to know who had told the driver. The company had the name of the driver who informed the complainant.

Selection process for redundancy.

His relationship with the Operations Manager who influenced the decision to make his role redundant was difficult. The complainant had reluctantly put in a complaint through the grievance procedure about the Operations Manager who did not respect the complainant’s autonomy. During Covid, the Operations Manager telephoned the complainant and threatened to release transcripts of a telephone conversations unless he apologised for what he had said to him.

The complainant told HR that he would be willing to work with him in a professional capacity.

The Operations Manager initially refused to sign his travel and subsistence expenses. Ultimately, he did. 

He was concerned that the process for determining who was to be made redundant was not impartial and that there was a desire to get rid of him. He felt the outcome was predetermined.

He raised concerns at the meeting on the 25/5/21 about the absence of a matrix. His role was a very important one. He thought that making his role redundant would worsen the financial situation for the company. He had no input into the process used to select roles for redundancy.

Possible vacancies.

On 9/7/21 the Operations Manager told him of a Cork vacancy for a Business Manager’s position. The complainant cannot remember if either he or SIPTU raised the Cork Job. -The respondent told him that the Cork vacancy might not be suitable.

The Operations Manager ruled him out of the Business Manager’s position in Navan.  He told the complainant that it was too far. He offered the position to a Sales Representative who when he declined the offer was fired.

 Cross examination of complainant.

Concerning the grievance process which did not uphold his grievance, he confirmed that he did not appeal the outcome. It was a flawed process.

Mitigation.

The complainant took up a new job on 20/6/22.

 He applied for many positions. The complaint submitted evidence after the hearing of applications made for twenty-nine positions.

Loss: His gross pay with the respondent was €38250. His new job attracts a salary of €31873. His total loss is €35015.

Legal authorities.

The complainant’s representative referred to JVC Europe Limited v Jerome Ponisi (2012) 23 E.L.R. 70 where the High Court noted:

“Redundancy is impersonal. Instead it must result from as s.7(2) of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967, as amended provides, ‘reasons not related to the employee concerned’ ”.

The complainant submits that the dismissal was not wholly redundancy related.

The complainant also relies on Boucher v Irish Productivity centre UD 882/1992, which emphasised the right of the employee to have an input into the selection criteria used in a redundancy process, a right not offered in the instant case. There was no policy and no framework for selection. In these circumstances the complainant had no input into the selection criteria.

The complainant asks that his claim be upheld.

The respondent deny that the complainant was unfairly dismissed. It was a genuine redundancy brought about by unsustainable financial losses. The complainant was fairly dismissed in accordance section 6(4)(c) of the Unfair Dismissal Act 1977 as amended.

Chronology of events.

The complainant was advised at a meeting on the 25 May that his role was at risk. A 30-day consultation process followed during which there were three meetings at which he was represented. On 21 July he was advised that the respondent was unable to source alternative employment. An appeal hearing was held on the 20 August. His appeal was not upheld. He was advised of this outcome on the 8 November.

Rehab Enterprises is part of the Rehab Group Dedicated to providing employment opportunities for persons with disabilities in a number of settings including newsagents, recycling centres and small-scale manufacturing. units

Evidence of HR Business Partner given under oath.

The witness confirmed that she had been in her role since 2019.

The witness set out the context in which the complainant’s role was identified at risk and ultimately redistributed amongst other staff.

The respondent offered the complainant a thirty-day consultation period.

It was a genuine redundancy brought about by financial and unsustainable losses over a seven-year period; €1.4 million in 2019 and €446,000 in 2020. High level management had to identify how to fix matters. Hence a restructuring process was introduced in 2021. The company resolved to try and turn things around and appointed five Business Managers in 2021. It was a new role designed to drive sales, secure new customers, and enforce compliance in the workforce. The respondent needed competent qualified persons for the role. The aim was to grow a flagging business. This Business Manager’s function was deemed capable of absorbing almost all of the elements of the complainant’s job. It was deemed capable of assuming compliance which includes Health and Safety, an element of the complainant’s role. The witness informed the complainant during the consultation process which took place from 25 May to the 9 July that they needed a Business Manager on each site; it was site specific process of examination.

The respondent stated that the complainant’s role was a stand-alone role. It had no responsibility outside of Dublin. Regarding Health and Safety, an element of the complainant’s role, the respondent had a Compliance and Audit Manager to oversee health and safety audits. The plan was to have one role coordinating health and safety for every site.

The complainant’s position of Quality, Environmental and Safety Manager was identified as one the functions could be reassigned to other roles effective from 31 July.

A matrix based on skills was not used because the role identified was a standalone role.

The number of employees made redundant in the period 2020-21:

Thirty-six in Limerick. The Limerick Rehab Enterprises site was a recycling and manufacturing centre. It had been loss making for a number of years and closed in 2021. The respondent tried to secure 36 other positions in Limerick through local employment agencies and options through the National Learning Network.

Twenty-one employees in Smiles were made redundant at the end of 2020. A programme was put in place to support these employees.

Two were made redundant in Cork. Cork engaged in recycling.

In terms of its other sites, the Navan site produced Christmas cards and did ad hoc work.

Portlaoise did ad hoc work.

The Galway site was the most profitable in securing business for its employees.

Overall, the respondent had to consider 270-280 possible redundancies.

Regarding Health and Safety, an element of the complainant’s role, the respondent had a Compliance and Audit Manager to oversee health and safety audits. He had been identified at risk, and was placed in new compliance and audit role, a grade 9 role. It was created in Feb 2021. The compliance role was a different role to that held by the complainant and was at a different grading and commanding a salary of €26,000 in excess of that earned by the complainant. When asked, the witness stated that she does not know how the requirements for the role were identified. That role was at the same level as the Business Manager role reporting to the Director of Enterprises. This new role of Compliance was vacated at the end of 2021 and was not replaced.

The redundancy of the complainant’s role helped the respondent to sustain the business. He was not replaced.

Efforts to retain the complainant in employment

There were 2 open jobs, a Business Manager in Cork and one in Navan in May 2021. They were advertised internally. The complainant was invited to apply. The witness stated that they discussed the Navan job with the complainant, but he did not apply for it. The complainant did not indicate that he was prepared to apply for the business partners role in  either Navan or Cork.

Cross examination of the HR Business Partner.

Concerning the leak which the complainant maintains show the predetermined nature of his redundancy, the witness stated that the identities of the authors of the statement were withheld from them. He was only at risk at that stage.

To the point that there were only 3 managers on the complainant’s site and 30 employees and, hence, they should not have been difficult to track down, the witness stated that the complainant did not give the respondent the source of the breach and they could go no further.

The witness confirmed that members of management were made redundant in Smiles, in the Limerick and Cork centres.

The witness advised that there were 3 managers in the complainant’s site who were involved in discussions about redundancy prior to meeting on 25 May. They included the Director plus the Operations Director. 

The witness confirmed that the complainant sought information on the matrix and the company finances. She advised that no matrix was used in relation to any site.

The witness stated that they employed best practice in that they offered a 30-day consultation period. It was a location specific examination. The consultation was two way. The witness confirmed that they had no written handbook or policy or appeal procedure. The respondent relies on Section 4 of the Unfair Dismissal Act 1977 UD Act to explain the redundancy.

In response to a question, the witness stated that there were some technicians’ posts and the complainant’s post which were stand-alone.

The Director of Corporate Affairs gave evidence under affirmation.

He took up his position in 2021.

The witness conducted the appeals process which was a virtual meeting on 20 August 2021. He was supported by the  Head of HR at this meeting.

At the appeal hearing, the witness asked the complainant to identify the grounds of the appeal. The complainant cited bias in the selection process because of the involvement of the Operations Manager in the process. The witness was aware of the complainant’s previous grievance against this manager in 2020, but the complainant raised no appeal against the outcome of that grievance. Concerning the alleged data breach, he consulted the Data Protection Officer who advised him that no breach had occurred as the identities of the authors of the statement that the complainant was to be made redundant were withheld.

He believes that the process of selection was fair; it was a stand -alone job in Dublin.

The complainant did not indicate that he was prepared to apply for the Business Partner’s role in either Navan or Cork.

The witness stated that he had conducted appeals in other organisations. He did not believe that the grounds advanced by the complainant warranted a reversal of the decision to make his role redundant.

The company was loss making; media articles had been published to this effect. The financial accounts for 2019 revealed the serious losses.

Cross examination of the Director of Corporate Affairs

The witness considered that the group Operations Manager was sufficiently objective notwithstanding the history of the complainant’s previous grievance against him in 2020.

Concerning the leak which the complainant maintains show the predetermined nature of his redundancy, the witness stated that the identity of the managers who had told his colleague that the complainant was earmarked for redundancy was withheld from them and they could not investigate the matter. He was only at risk at that stage. The source of breach was not given to the respondent.

To the point that there are only 3 managers on the complainant’s site and 30 employees, so it should not have been difficult to track down the authors of the statement, the witness stated that he consulted the Data Protection Officer.

He confirmed that there were managers made redundant in Smiles, Limerick and Cork.

The witness confirmed that there were 3 managers in the Tallaght site involved in discussion about redundancy prior to the meeting on 25 May.

Alternative position.

The witness stated that they discussed the Navan job with the complainant, but he did not apply for it.

The witness confirmed to the complainant during the consultation process which took place from 25 May – 9 July that they needed a Business Manager on each site; they had conducted a site-specific process of examination.

The witness confirmed that no matrix was used in relation to any site.

The witness stated that they employed best practice in that they offered a 30-day consultation period.

He confirmed that they had no written appeal procedure.

He accepts that the minutes of the appeal meeting of 20 August 2021 did not contain the complainant’s statement that two managers had told a colleague that he was to be made redundant.

The witness did not respond to the question why they did not try and source alternative roles for the complainant during this four-week period which ran from the end of the consultation period on the 21 July to the appeal which took place on the 20 August 2012. The search for alternative roles was confined to the consultation period which ran from the 25 May to 21 July 2021.

Legal authorities.

The respondent relies on Cruise v Nugent Manufacturing UD 2099/09 which held that employees who are in a singular or unique position cannot claim unfair selection for redundancy. Thus, for a claim to succeed the complainant must show that there were one or more employees doing the same or similar work as the redundant employee who have not been made redundant.

The EAT did not uphold his appeal. This corresponds with the instant complaint.

The respondent submits that it behaved reasonably and satisfied section 6 (7) of the Unfair Dismissals Act in the steps taken by way of meetings and correspondences with the complainant.

The respondent also relies on the judgment of Kohinoor Ltd v Hussain Ali, UDD1629. The Court found in favour of the respondent. It held that there was a genuine redundancy as the respondent decided to carry on its business with fewer employees due to the changes taking place in the business at the time. The Court found the selection matrix used to select those to be made redundant and the criteria were objective and fair, the respondent had engaged in fair procedures by consulting with all affected employees before any redundancy was decided. The respondent submits that the process used to select the complainant for redundancy matches that found in  Kohinoor Ltd.

The respondent also relies on White v Yenom Ltd, UD/993/2009 which held even where the consultation procedure was deficient, the claim of unfair selection and unfair dismissal failed as it was genuine redundancy

The respondent engaged in a consultation process with the complainant. It was only until after all possible alternatives to redundancy were considered, including seeking suitable alternative roles, that a decision was made to confirm the redundancy of the complainant’s role. It was a cost cutting measure. It was the role and not the person that was made redundant.

The respondent asks the adjudicator to dismiss the complaint in its entirety.

. 

I am required to decide if the complainant was unfairly dismissed by virtue of an unfair selection for redundancy.

Relevant law

Section 6(1) of the Unfair Dismissal Act 1977 as amended provides that

 “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.”

Section 6(3) of the Act sets out the substantial grounds and provides

“(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) N/A.

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

 Section 6(4) (c) of the Act goes on to state that a dismissal shall be deemed not to be unfair

‘if it results wholly or mainly from one or more of the following:

…  the redundancy of the employee.’

Section 6.7 of the Act as amended superimposes an additional requirement on an employer selecting an employee for redundancy. It states:

 “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 or the Labour Court, as the case may be, considers it appropriate to do so—

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

(b) N/a”.

The statutory grounds enabling a redundancy are set out in Section 7(2)(b) and (c) of the Redundancy Payments Act,1967, and provide as follows:

“(b) the fact that the requirements of that business for employees to carry out work of a particular kind in the place where he was so employed have ceased or diminished or are expected to cease or diminish, or

(c) the fact that his 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 his dismissal) to be done by other employees or otherwise”,

Application of these statutory provisions to the facts of the instant complaint.

It follows from the above provisions that if an employee is dismissed due to redundancy, the dismissal will not be deemed to be unfair provided that there are substantial grounds justifying the dismissal, the selection process is fair in cases of redundancy, and the employer’s conduct is not unreasonable.

The burden of proof rests with the respondent to prove that the dismissal was wholly redundancy related. The respondent must justify the selection process whereby the complainant was selected for redundancy.

A genuine redundancy?

The Employment Appeals Tribunal decision in St Ledger v Frontline Distributors Ireland Ltd (1995) E.L.R. 160 emphasised that there were two important characteristics in the statutory definition of redundancy, namely impersonality and change.

In JVC Europe Limited V Jerome Panisi 210 125CA (2011) Mr Justice Charleton states that "Redundancy is not, however, a personal choice. It is in essence the external or internal economic or technological reorienting of an enterprise whereby the work of employees needs to be shed or carried out in an entirely different manner. As such redundancy is entirely impersonal. Dismissal on the other hand is a decision targeted at an individual".

Are the characteristics set out in the above rulings evident in the instant complaint?

The complainant argued that his redundancy was needless, that his role had a nationwide remit in terms of health and safety, that it discharged functions essential to the company which could not be dispensed with or reassigned to another role. He also contested the assertion that it was a standalone role. Therefore, a matrix for selection should have been used to select employees at risk.

However the uncontested evidence was that the respondent sustained severe financial losses culminating in  (€1.4 m in 2019  and €446 in 2020), and a decline in contracts secured ( with the exception of Galway), with a consequential reduced need for support persons such as the complainant. The respondent engaged in a review of its structures and decided that in order to reduce costs, they needed to reduce the headcount. They identified the complainant’s role at risk. They envisaged a redistribution of his functions to the Business Manager’s role and to the Compliance and Audit Manager’s role. This relatively recently created role of Business Manager was destined to drive sales and secure more business and as a revenue increasing role, was deemed essential to stem the financial losses. It also had responsibility for compliance and audits and other elements of the complainant’s role.

 While the complainant argued that this Business Manager role was not suitable/ amenable to absorb the function of his role, I consider that it is the respondent’s call as to the content of a role unless reasons lacking credibility are advanced, which they were not. No sufficient evidence was advanced of any inherent obstacle to the transfer of the complainant’s functions to the Business Manager’s role and to the Audit and Compliance Manager’s role. The evidence did not demonstrate how the complainant’s existing unaltered role was sustainable. He has not been replaced. His duties have been redistributed among other staff.

The evidence leads me to conclude that in the instant case, the respondent had sustained losses that compelled them to reduce the work force.

The complainant was not replaced, and 59 redundancies had been carried out in the previous 12 months in different sites with consequential diminished demands on support staff such as the complainant.

 Hence the necessary element of change was present.

I accept that this was a very difficult decision for the complainant.

I find that it was a genuine redundancy pursuant to Section 7(2)(b) and (c) of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967.

Selection process.

The complainant states that the absence of a matrix renders the selection to be unfair. The Labour Court in Component Distributors (CD Ireland) Ltd -v- Brigid (Beatrice) Burns UDD1854, accepted that

“the Respondent was entitled to restructure its business and reduce its workforce if necessary”.

The Court went on to state that,

“…While the Respondent was entitled to decide on the most appropriate means of achieving its operational requirements, its entitlement in that regard is not unfettered. The right of the complainant to retain her employment must have been taken into consideration. That necessarily obliged the Respondent to look at all available options by which this could be achieved.”

 There was no consultation with the complainant and for this reason the decision to make her redundant was held to be an unfair dismissal.

In the instant situation, the respondent engaged in a 30-day selection process which was scheduled to end on the 21 July. There were three consultation meeting at which his doubts about the need for the redundancy were addressed and the reasoning behind his selection was set out. The respondent dealt with– if not to the complainant’s satisfaction- the complainant’s fear that his selection was attributable to an earlier grievance which he had taken against the Operations Director who was part of the group who had identified his role as being at risk of redundancy. I do not accept that because the Operations Director had been involved in the process of selection that this somehow neutralises the precarious state of the respondent’s finances or renders the process to be unfair.

The complainant also asks that I accept that his selection was predetermined on the basis of a colleague telling him on 24 May that two managers had told this colleague that the complainant’s role was to be made redundant and this, therefore, means the decision was predetermined.  The respondent attempted to investigate this but the identities of the authors of that statement were not disclosed to the respondent, and he was unable to investigate it. The respondent did not dispute that this had occurred but given that this remained an unexamined, unproven assertion, through no fault of the respondent, I am unable to conclude that this was evidence of a predetermined decision to make his role redundant.

Accordingly, I find that the respondent provided the complainant with an opportunity to challenge the proposed redundancy, he had union representation throughout the thirty-day consultation process. He exercised his right to appeal the decision making his position redundant. That decision was upheld on appeal.  His employment terminated on 24 September 2021.

Reasonableness of employer’s conduct.

Section 6.7 of the Act obliges the respondent to act reasonably towards the complainant.

In Jeffers v DDC Ireland Ltd. UD 169/2000, the EAT held that where a person was being made redundant, there was an onus on the employer

“(i) to take reasonable steps to seek alternative employment within the company for the employee being made redundant, (ii) to know what positions, if any, are available on the relevant date, and (iii) to offer any such reasonable alternative positions to the employee whose position is becoming redundant.”

The adjudicator in An Employee V A Golf Club, 24960, considered how an employer might conduct a fair selection process in a redundancy exercise. The adjudicator relied on Williams –v- Comp Air (1982) 1 ICR 156, which set out the principles governing how reasonable employers will act, faced with having to choose which employees should be made redundant and stated 

“1.The employer will seek to give as much warning as possible of impending redundancies so as to enable the union and employees who may be affected to take early steps to inform themselves of the relevant facts, consider possible alternative solutions and, if necessary, find alternative employment in the undertaking or elsewhere.

2.N/A

 3 N/A

 4.The employer will seek to ensure that the selection is made fairly in accordance with these criteria and will consider any representations the union may make as to such selection.

 5.The employer will seek to see whether instead of dismissing an employee he could offer him alternative employment”.

So also in Tracey Ring v Student Facilities & Services (UCC) Designated Activity Company (DAC) T/A Unisalon, ADJ-00037197, the adjudicator held that

“a lawful redundancy process requires the genuine consideration of suitable alternative employment within the organisation, including any suggestions the employee brings to the table. It requires the employee to be afforded a right of appeal.”

Accordingly, even in legitimate redundancy situations, an employer must act reasonably in dealing with the redundancy situation. This obligation also arises even where there is no agreed selection for redundancy procedure in place.

The complainant did not challenge the respondent’s evidence that he did not apply for the vacant roles in Navan and Cork. The suggestions which he made about amalgamating his role with other roles did not address the existence of the newly created Business Manager’s role or the rationale for same. The available roles were at a higher grade. The complainant was focussed on the needlessness of the redundancy and the sustainability of his existing role of Quality Environmental Safety Officer as opposed to an alternative role. He did maintain that he would have been capable of fulfilling the Audit and Compliance Manager’s role but that had been filled in February 2021. He saw little value in the business Manager’s role.

The complainant made the point that the respondent failed to try and secure alternative employment and avert his redundancy after the consultation period had ended and prior to the appeal on 20 August. Attachments to the complainant’s submission reveal that a vacancy did arise for a temporary Senior Health Safety and Risk Officer in August, its existence unearthed by the complainant. The complainant contacted the respondent, and the respondent did send him an application form for this position.  The complainant did not put the conduct of the respondent concerning this matter to the respondent at the hearing.

There are degrees of effort involved in a search for an alternative role and the respondent did not overexert themselves in seeking a role but I find that is a distance from making no effort to avert a redundancy or failing to comply with the requirements of section 6(7) of the Act.

The problem for the complainant is that he was unable to point to a currently available, equivalent or similar role to which he could be matched.

In all of the circumstances and based on the evidence, I cannot find that the dismissal was unfair.

I do not find this complaint to be well founded.

I do not find this complaint to be well founded.

Redundancy; stand-alone role.