Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Thomas  Barry

Exterion Media Ireland Limited /Global Media & Entertainment Ireland

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

{text}

{text}

Representatives

Brian Doyle Bernadette Barry & Co

Ciaran Loughran 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-00045632-001

11/08/2021

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.  The complaint relates to an unfair dismissal.

The complainant and another witness for the complainant gave their evidence under affirmation. Three witnesses for the respondent gave their evidence under affirmation.  All witnesses were cross examined.

The respondent submitted that there was a clear redundancy requirement and that the process was conducted in a fair, reasonable and transparent fashion.  The respondent refuted the allegation of unfair dismissal in its entirety noting that the complainants employment was terminated on 12 March 2021 by reason of genuine redundancy in accordance with section 6(4)(c) of the Unfair Dismissals Acts (1977 - 2015), - 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: (c) the redundancy of the employee.

The respondent submitted that it is a long-established outdoor media company, who develop, manage and operate advertising networks, sites and formats across bus, rail, retail, and roadside environments. It submitted that it has a staff of 50 people.

The respondent submitted that as a consequence of the prolonged social and economic restrictions due to Covid-19, and their continuing adverse effect on business throughout 2020, in January 2021, it completed a review of its overall business and its resource requirements. The review assessed the requirements of the business in the context of an envisaged business recovery and the resources required at the beginning, during, and particularly at the end of that recovery. With these considerations in mind, it made the decision to restructure the operations department with a focus on field operations.

The respondent submitted that on 19 February the complainant along with all the field operatives were informed at a town hall meeting that a restructure was being proposed which would result in two roles being made redundant. In total 16 employees were put at risk of redundancy. On 23 February, the respondent met with the complainant and informed him that he was at risk of redundancy.  He was informed of the process and selection criteria that would be used. He was also provided with a letter setting out this information.

The respondent submitted that the complainant was invited to and attended at a consultation meeting held on 3 March 2021 with the Operations Manager and a HR Manager. He was advised of his right to be accompanied by a work colleague but attended unaccompanied. At this meeting the complainant was informed that based on the scoring applied to the selection criteria he remained at risk of redundancy. A letter summarising this meeting was given to him on 3 March. On the 10 March 2021 the complainant attended a further consultation meeting with the Operations Manager and HR Manager. At this meeting there was further discussion regarding the scoring on the selection process, and any alternative work or other options to avoid redundancy. A letter summarising the meeting was given to him on 10 March.

The respondent submitted that on 5 March 2021, the complainant requested a copy of data, relating to him, retained by the company. This information was provided to him on 12 & 18 March 2021. On 12 March 2021, the complainant attended a meeting with the Operations Manager, HR Manager and the Franchise & Operations Director. He was informed that as no alternative to redundancy had been identified that the decision had been made to proceed with the redundancy.  He was informed that he would be paid in lieu of notice and was provided with a letter confirming this decision. In this letter he was also advised of his right to appeal that decision.

The respondent submitted that on 15 March 2021 the complainant e-mailed the HR Manager appealing the redundancy decision to the Managing Director. In this e mail he requested the right to bring a legal representative and not to schedule a hearing date until he had received information requested on 5 March and agreed minutes of meetings. On 16 March 2021 the Managing Director e-mailed the complainant requesting that he outline the grounds for the appeal. He also e mailed to state that they would allow a legal representative at the appeal hearing.

The respondent submitted that on 26 March 2021 the complainant e-mailed setting out the grounds for the appeal. This appeal meeting took place on 13 April 2021 and was attended by the Managing Director, and a member of the Finance Team (as note taker). The complainant attended accompanied by a colleague. This meeting was recorded as agreed and sent to a third party to have the minutes transcribed.   On 17 May 2021 the outcome of the appeal was sent to the complainant upholding the redundancy decision.

Oral evidence:

The operations manager gave evidence that he was the Direct Line manager for the complainant and the complainant's witness. He noted that they provided advertisements for advertising space within a short time frame. He noted that at the time of the redundancy 50 or 51 employees were employed in the company.

When talking about the need to make staff redundant he noted that the pandemic had a drastic effect on business and that the effect was seismic resulting in a decline in their bookings. It led to a full review of the business operation. As a result of the pandemic, they had previously cancelled all capital plans and moved agreements so as to minimise costs and maximise savings. He stated that they were not looking at the short term but rather at a two to three-year plan.

He said that he was looking at changing the format of the business and only needed two redundancies to fulfil their recovery plan. He noted that there has been no increase in the operations team since the redundancies were affected. He noted that 16 people were put in the ‘at-risk’ category. He looked at things such as skills, behaviour and attitude, understanding of the sector, and reliability. He noted that some small changes were made to the matrix as a result of inputs from various operatives. He noted that the complainant did not raise any issues with the way the matrix was formatted and noted that there was no turbulent relationship with the complainant or the witness.

He noted that the witness had taken a personal injuries claim against the company but this had no bearing upon the process.  He noted that there was no bias or ill will towards the complainant's family, as suggested.

He confirmed that the matrix was not designed to target any individuals comment as it was too broad for that, and he confirmed that no one sought voluntary redundancy from the company.

Under cross examination, he confirmed that he knew the complainant for a long time and that he had trained him in certain formats and was his supervisor at one time. He confirmed that he had vast experience within the sector and noted that he came in as a general operative. He noted that he transferred in as a result of a transfer of undertakings.

He confirmed that there is still one member of staff who is from the complainant's family, the complainant's nephew who is the son of his brother.

The witness noted that he developed the matrix and had input into it as he was the as he was the person best placed as line manager to complete the matrix. He noted that normally with such a matrix you would consider 12 months but given that 2020 occurred (and Covid), he considered that this was not fair and included an additional 12 months.

He noted that people would only move around if they were not busy. He noted that the complainants’ values did not align with the company. He didn't socialise with the others, not just pints etc., he didn't attend conferences or go to team building away-days.  When he did, it was difficult to get him to engage as he was a reluctant participant.  He noted that there were only one or two company events per year. He also noted that engagement was not given a large weighting in the matrix and noted that every score counted

In relation to the witnesses scores on the matrix, he said that although it was a very strong team the witness openly admitted that he had a bad attitude and that there was no secret that he could come across as difficult. He noted that there were no performance issues, and nothing needed to be assessed under the disciplinary procedure.

As regards the institutional and operational knowledge of the complainant he said that he didn't believe that his score warranted the maximum and noted that the witness required guidance in approaching the job.

When asked about alternatives, the witness said he considered layoff, short time, and job share but that he considered that these were more short-term options. He said that he considered last-in, first-out but discounted it as, in the circumstances of the pandemic, he felt it was unfair and wanted to retain the best people. He did note that he had a fear of seeking voluntary redundancies as the company could have lost some of its best people but noted that it wasn't an option that considered at that time.

Under redirect, he confirmed that he was not aware of any issue regarding the Transfer of Undertakings process the company had engaged in.

The second witness was the franchise and operations director.  He noted that he maintained a monthly watch on the business figures revenues were going to fall for the next two to three years auntie noted that certain areas would see lower levels of activity. When looking at how to address the challenges business faced, he noted that long term layoff was not a possibility. They also looked at taking subcontractor work back in house but that was not possible as this really related to operations outside their geographical area.

He noted he was directly involved in the business assessment and conclusion that redundancy would be involved. He was involved in the town hall style meetings. He also noted that he was involved in reviewing the scoring once it was completed. He noted that he attended the final meeting when the complainants were informed that they were to be made redundant. He noted that he amended some of the scores upwards for three individuals including one of the complainants. He noted that he had no grievance towards the complainant's family as suggested and noted that the complainant's brother had his back on a number of occasions. He also noted that another family member had been a key subcontractor since 2014. And he noted that one of the family members continued to be employed in the company.

Under cross examination he confirmed that he reviewed the matrix and found that the structure of the process was more than fair. He confirmed he was more than happy with the process that it was the fairest most balanced way to assess people. He noted that everyone has a primary function, and that certain people move when they're not busy. He noted that the first respondent witness was really the person who had the first hand knowledge of the competences of all workers. He noted that it was the case that people who worked in all areas got more points than people who didn't work in every area.

It was put to the witness that his opinions were simply based on the options provided to him by the 1st witness. He denied that.

The witness confirmed that the complainant had never raised a grievance that he can recall.

The third witness was the managing director. The witness noted that they had to cut their spending when the COVID pandemic hit. The advertising business was badly hit as companies put a halt on their discretionary spending. By the end of 2021 they had identified that there was no quick fix, they were still almost 30% of their 2019 figures and accordingly they looked at layoffs, voluntary redundancy, reduced hours, shorter working week and reduced outsourcing. They also looked at redundancies on a mandatory basis.

The witness noted his involvement was only at a strategic or high-level overview. He noted that he was involved in an overview of selection criteria and the town hall meetings but was not involved in the selection meetings or review. He noted that he became aware of who was selected after the selection process completed and just before the individuals were informed. He noted that he was involved in the appeal meetings and the complainant sought recordings which were granted, transcribed and circulated.

As regards the argument that the complainant was targeted because of his family name the witness said that this was not true as a number of family members were still key subcontractors and employees. He also noted that the redundancy selection had no connection to personal injuries claim of the complainant witness as other employees had taken personal injury claims and remained employees.

As regards the question that the complainant should have been given more recognition for experience, he noted that this didn't come into it as the average length of employment of employees was between 6 and 24 years so all employees for longer term employees.

As regards the selection matrix, he noted that the business skills matrix was independently audited as part of a quality process. He noted that there was definite evidence that there was a long-term business requirement to make some employees redundant and as part of the appeals process, he found that alternatives were considered. He did not consider the allegation of bias to be valid and he noted that every effort was made to include the employee’s contribution into the process. He confirmed that there was no voluntary redundancy, none was considered nor sought.

Under cross examination he was asked about custom and practise but noted that he didn't know how previous redundancies were conducted as there had been a series of buyouts and transfer of undertakings since any previous redundancies in 2009. He confirmed that he reviewed what the human resources provider submitted and was advised that they were using best practise using objective data only. He concluded that the process was objective although the objectivity of the process was called into question and was put to him as such. He noted that a detailed investigation happened during the appeal process: he reviewed the letter given by the complainant.  He reviewed all the scores and was satisfied they were fair and that there was a factual basis for the scoring.

Under redirection he confirmed that all candidates were given the opportunity to contribute and that both the complainant and his witness were happy with the person who was completing their scores.

The complainant submitted that the redundancy process was notable by the absence of fairness and reasonableness.  This renders it biased and unreasonable.  The complainant submitted that the scoring should have been objective. No issues were raised with the complainant’s performance, and he was not allowed to address any issues, or to discuss the scores awarded in advance of the finalisation of the process.

The complainant submitted that he was employed by this company and its predecessors from 1996 until he was made redundant on 12 March 2021. Following an appeal of this decision, his redundancy was confirmed by way of letter dated 17 May 2021. The Complainant’s annual salary at the time of his redundancy was €39,000 with a subsistence supplement of €3000. 

On or about the 23 February 2021, he attended a meeting arranged by the respondent where he was first put on notice that the company were considering making two staff members redundant. A series of meetings took place on the 3, 10 and 12 March 2021 to complete the redundancy process.

The complainant submitted that he did not believe at any stage during the meetings that took place on 23 February 2021 and 3 March that he was at risk of being selected for redundancy due to his long history of service, the fact that he had trained the vast majority of staff and that he was in fact the “go-to person” for trouble shooting most operational issues that arose. When he was presented with the “Selection matrix for redundancy” at the meeting that took place on 3 March 2021, he was very confident that he would score highly and that he would not be at risk of selection.

The complainant submitted that he was deeply shocked at the scoring that he received in the meeting that took place on 10 March. He felt completely “blindsided” by this scoring, and it was only then that he felt certain that this redundancy process set up for the sole purpose of terminating his employment and that his redundancy in fact amounted to an unfair dismissal.

The complainant submitted minutes of the meetings that took place and also the minutes of the appeal which took place on 12 April 2021. These minutes set out the individual scoring of each task in detail and the basis of the complainant’s objections to same.

The complainant submitted that the company has had many different owners and entities over the years.  He submitted that he was the excelled in his role and quickly established himself as the “go-to” person for any problems or trouble shooting that was required in the outdoor advertising operations department.  The company then acquired a new business premises for their outdoor operations, and he put in charge of that premises and the staff who worked there. A large part of his role was to train-in other staff members on how to do the bus advertising and other outdoor advertising that the company was contracted to do.

The complainant submitted that he is of the view that he was unfairly selected for redundancy due to the long history of rivalry between his brother who was Operations Director and Managing Director of some of the companies that the business was attached to.  He felt that he was always constantly being watched in terms of his work and that they were almost looking for reasons to pull him up over the smallest of things in order to get rid of him.

The complainant submitted that during the first lockdown period from late March 2020 until June/July 2020 all staff were out of work but were being fully paid. The company availed of the government wages support scheme. Staff did not attend work and there was very little advertising during that time apart from the permanent advertising sites that the company has outdoors such as those on bridges. Those sites are paid for in advance and would have generated a generous income.

When the country came out of lockdown in June/July 2020 the business did pick up again in terms of advertising. The GAA matches in early autumn stimulated a lot of advertising and the respondent were engaged by numerous companies during that period to do advertising on the pitches.

The complainant submitted that during the first lockdown they were told by management that they had negotiated a lower rental fee for some of their advertising sites due to the lockdown and loss of revenue, so the respondent were in receipt of government supports and also a reduction of their overhead costs.

The second major lockdown was from 10 October 2020 and went straight through to the date of his redundancy on 13 March 2021 (with the exception of a few weeks in December when the country opened up again). During this period all staff were paid fully, and the company availed of the covid support scheme to pay staff wages, however, staff were working during this time. The company had to adopt safe social distancing measures which meant that they only did approximately 4 days a week in order to be able to comply with the regulations. Work was coming in and all staff did whatever work had to be done on the days they were in. They did not have any defined work sections during that time. The complainant submitted that he would have been sent to work anywhere such as on the buses or in the train stations, anywhere there was work. This is an important point when it comes to the “redundancy selection matrix” criteria used by the employer in selecting candidates for redundancy.

The complainant is of the view that the redundancy that he was given was in fact an unfair dismissal disguised as a redundancy. He feels that the respondent went to great lengths to ensure that the redundancy selection process looked like it was fair. He submitted that they seem to have carried out all of the processes and procedures required by law, however, these processes do not reflect what was really happening and the fact that the two persons charged with this task had a very long-standing grudge against the complainant and his brother.

The complainant submitted that these two individuals created a “redundancy selection matrix for Operations Field Operatives” and proceeded to score all of the selected staff in accordance with the criteria set out in that document. They did not operate a last in first out policy.

The complainant submitted that he set out his objections to the scoring applied to him in detail in the meetings that took place, in particular on 10 and 12 March and 12 April 2021. 

The complainant submitted that it is extremely important to point out that the respondent did not apply the selection process to all staff members. They selectively left out all the staff who worked in the storerooms. These staff were idle for long periods of the day during that time of redundancy selection, and they should have been included in the pool of staff to be selected for redundancy. If they were included the complainant could not have scored at the bottom. The respondent left this cohort of staff members out of the selection pool in order to manufacture a situation where they could place the complainant and his colleague at the bottom of the league.

The complainant submitted that the scoring was carried out and applied by the same two people who had a long and bitter battle with the complainant’s brother throughout the years.  He is of the view that the scoring that was applied to him was not objective in its application as both of the parties doing the scoring had a conflict of interest under the circumstances and were very subjective in their approach to the application of these scores.

The complainant submitted that he is of the firm belief that the respondent used the pandemic as an opportunity to get rid of them both him and his colleague who was the father of his grandchildren, due to the long held grudges on the part of the two individuals.  He submitted that his colleague who was also selected for redundancy worked mainly alongside him and due to his familial connection, he is of the view that his colleague was “collateral damage”. 

The complainant submitted that he feels very upset that he had twenty-six years in service to the respondent and its predecessors and was then selected for redundancy when he had personally trained the vast majority of the operational staff that the respondent retained. The selection criteria were supposed to be based on the skills of each individual staff member. The complainant was always consulted by these same retained staff members whenever there was a problem or an issue to resolve at an operational level. He was a hard-working dedicated staff member. The complainant cannot accept that he scored so badly vis-a-vis his other colleagues, colleagues that he himself had trained on these very work tasks.

The complainant submitted that one of the problems that the respondent raised at the redundancy meetings was that he did not socialise with them which the complainant feels should not have formed part of the selection criteria. The complainant was one of a few older staff members and those older staff members also did not go to the pub on nights out. The complainant also used to work most weekends and Friday nights so socialising and going out with those colleagues was always difficult for those who did those shifts. 

Prior to the pandemic the complainant oversaw the “Scrollers” section which were a type of large outdoor billboard advertising. His section brought in substantial revenue. The company was trying to get rid of some of its advertising units such as those in the shopping centres and around the train stations as they were not performing well with clients and customers. This “Scrollers” section had the latest and most innovative advertising technology amongst the products that the Respondent sold to their clients. These Scrollers always sold out and the complainant’s section was always extremely busy. The complainant confirms that at the time of his redundancy the respondent company were still selling these Scrollers.

The complainant submitted that in relation to the creation of the redundancies he had suggested they could have gone with layoffs instead of redundancy. It was always anticipated that once Covid subsided that the company could resume working and that revenue would get back to normal.

The complainant submitted that in 2020 when the country came out of lockdown on or about June 2020 the company were very busy. The staff were not allowed to take any holidays and they had to work right through the summer. There was no reason why this would not be the case once the 2021 lockdown was over. Around the time of the redundancy the first Covid vaccinations were being rolled out. Layoffs would have allowed the respondent to save money but then to call staff back if and when things took off again. However, the company did not consider doing layoffs instead of redundancies.

The complainant submitted that when they had the first initial meeting with the respondent on 19 February 2021, they were told that they would let the weaker sections go that were not performing. At that point he did not feel any anxiety or worry because his section was always extremely busy and lucrative.

The complainant states that he could have been put to work anywhere because he had been trained on all the sections within the company and indeed had trained in most of the existing operational staff. The complainant states that there was one staff member who had requested redundancy and he does not know why they did not make that staff member redundant instead.

The complainant submitted that if redundancies were necessary then it was the staff from the section that was not performing economically should have been selected first as they were for the most part idle and spent large amounts of their time in the storeroom on their phones with little or no work to do. This is in direct contrast to the complainant and his colleague who were continuously busy when they were working.

The complainant submitted that the Adjudication Officer should make a finding that the complainant was in fact dismissed and not fairly selected for redundancy and requests the Adjudication Officer to look beyond the paperwork and processes adopted to see it for what it was, which was a sham and a fabricated process to dismiss the complainant and his colleague.

The complainant gave his evidence and noted that he began working in they responded in 1996 and was employed for 24 years he noted that there was a period when he was subcontractor, but he came back in house in 2008. He noted that he raised concerns at the time that when he came back in, he was being classed as a general operative rather than a supervisor.

He noted that he had experience across all the roles in the business but in the last two years he found himself isolated in his own role and was not asked to do anything beyond that. He noted that no performance reviews were undertaken. He noted that he was never reprimanded but also noted that he would have been happy to move across roles. He stated that he felt isolated.

The complainant stated that when he saw the matrix, he felt very confident, perhaps overconfident that he would be OK. He agreed with what they were proposing to do. He found that being marked down in relation to critical skills was unbelievable, how could he as one of two of the most experienced workers be marked down on that basis. He noted that those who were considered more versatile or given more scores but that the respondents first witness was controlling who got what work and he was never given the opportunity to do other work. He noted that he never complained he just felt the isolation.

Under cross examination he noted that he joined the organisation in 2014 under a Transfer of Undertakings. He confirmed that he raised an issue regarding the job title as a general operative rather than a supervisor. He noted that he never took a complaint under the transfer of undertaking regulations but has been a general operative since that time.

When asked was the matrix scored by the right person, he confirmed that it was. He noted that he had an opportunity to raise concerns on the criteria in advance, but he raised none. He said the scoring was ridiculous he had done several years in most sections but felt that it was wrong that somebody of his experience should be marked down. It was put to him that the scores were based on people's current skill level. The complainant noted that he didn't think that his own score was done fairly.

The complainant was asked what issues were raised regarding his family but noted that there had been a coldness since he came back in 2014 but that this was just his own impression. He noted that he had no direct evidence of this but only an impression. 

The complainant did not accept that the appeals process was conducted thoroughly, to him there was something wrong and he was disappointed with the outcome. He noted that the organisation was still operating under reduced requirements and possibly accepted that redundancies were necessary.

Under redirection he confirmed that he didn't realise he could have taken an action under the transfer of undertakings regulations. He noted that there was a coolness that came about when he came back, and this developed over the last few years. He said that he accepted the decision arrived at but doesn't feel that his was administered in a fair and objective manner.  He stated that he felt he was being targeted because his brother had previously been the business owner.

The witness for the complainant worked alongside him he stated that he was employed since 2015 when he first came into stores as a general operative. He noted that he moved around a lot and noted that at one stage he had fallen and torn ligaments in his left knee. He noted that he was often taken away from the complainant who he worked with as his helper but that when he returned, they would have to catch up the following week. He noted that he raised an issue of unfair distribution of work, but it went nowhere.

The witness noted that he was one of the lowest paid individuals in the organisation and felt he was overlooked when at work promotions. He said other staff were surprised when he didn't get a job he was going for.

When asked how he felt about the scores he noted he was devastated, and it was mentioned to him that he didn't do various roles regularly enough. He noted that not being moved around led to him scoring less. He noted that he never had any formal reviews but would have been considered a reliable and could worker. He stated that when he received the recordings of the meetings, he felt that there were pieces missing. He also stated that he trusted that the whole redundancy process would have been done in a fair manner.

Under cross examination he noted that when he began work, he had to send in a CV, but it was known he was related to the complainant. He was not surprised that he was recruited in the first place.

As regards the personal injuries claim, he noted that the company paid for his GP visits and that he was off work for four months.  He stated that he returned to work on light duties. He stated that he was overlooked for a driver role and that there were two of them in for the job but that the other person was successful.

Section 6(1) of the Unfair Dismissals Act states that:

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.

Section 6(3) of the Act states that:

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.

Section 6(2) of the Act includes reasons such as membership of a trade union or undertaking trade union activities; religious or political opinions; having made a protected disclosure of being a witness in certain proceedings; the race, colour, sexual orientation or age of a person; membership of the travelling community; pregnancy, breast feeding, or seeking adoptive or parental leave. The section does not include being members of a family or having connections to a former owner of the company.

The respondent appears to have followed procedure in relation to undertaking redundancies, it made the decision to continue working with fewer employees, as provided for in Section 7(2)(c) of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967:

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an employee who is dismissed shall be taken to be dismissed by reason of redundancy if for one or more reasons not related to the employee concerned the dismissal is attributable wholly or mainly to—

(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, or

The complainant accepted that redundancies may have been necessary for the company’s survival.  He accepted that the person who drew up the redundancy matrix was the correct person to do so.  He never took any grievance against the company but, simply put, had a feeling that the company was against him.  He suggested that the company had some sort of bias against his family but confirmed that his nephew was still employed there and that another relative remained an important sub-contractor of the respondent.

Having regard to all the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this matter, I am not satisfied that the complainant’s dismissal on the redundancy ground amounts to anything other than a fair dismissal.  Therefore, I find that the complainant was not unfairly dismissed.

Having regard to all the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this complaint, my decision is that the complainant was not unfairly dismissed.

Unfair dismissal – procedures followed – no rationale to establish an unfair dismissal