Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Orla  Mulroy

Halfords Limited

Representatives

Self-Represented

Niamh Ní Cheallaigh, IBEC

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00047103-001

10/11/2021

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 19th March 2006. At all times, the Complainant’s role was described as that of “customer service advisor”. The Complainant was a permanent employee, who worked an average of 25 hours per week. The employment was terminated by the Respondent on the grounds of redundancy on 14th May 2021.

On 12th November 2021, the Complainant referred the present complaint to the Commission. Herein, she alleged that she was unfairly dismissed by the Respondent. In particular, she submitted that the work for which she was hired to perform was still being carried out by the Respondent. She further submitted that the outcome of the process was cosmetic in nature and served to move her to less favorable contractual terms. In denying this allegation, the Respondent submitted that they undertook a large scale restructure that unfortunately resulted in the redundancy of some employees, including the Complainant. They submitted that they properly consulted with her in relation to the same and respected all contractual and natural rights during the process.

A hearing in relation to this matter was convened for, and finalised on, 7th July 2022. This hearing was conducted by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. No technical issues were experienced by either side during the hearing.

No issues as to my jurisdiction to hear the complaint were raised at any stage of the proceedings. As the fact of dismissal is not in dispute, the Respondent accepted that the consequent burden of proof and presented their case prior to the Complainant.

In 2020 and into 2021, the Respondent engaged in a large-scale restructuring project. This project took place over three distinct phases. Phase one of this project placed that roles of “stock file support” and “duty manager” at risk of redundancy. In addition to the same, all employees were consulted with regarding a new customer services role, known as “Solutions Advisors”. It was anticipated that these new roles would, in time replace the general customer services roles with a smaller number of more specialised employees. The Complainant engaged in the training process during phase one of the project. Following the foregoing, phase two of the project placed the roles of “assistant manager” at risk of redundancy.

Finally, during phase 3 of the project, all customer service roles were placed at risk of redundancy. Following this process, 32 such employees (including the Complainant) were made redundant.

Regarding the Complainant in particular, she was placed at risk of redundancy on 26th March 2021. At this time, she was provided with a briefing document setting out the background to the project being undertaken by the Respondent, the anticipated future for the Complainant’s role and the potential alternatives to redundancy, including potential re-deployment.

On 31st March, the Complainant attended a consultation meeting arranged by the Respondent. Herein the rationale for redundancy was explained in person. Following the same, the Respondent sought to identify any potential roles that might act as an alternative to redundancy. At the end of the meeting the parties agreed that it was open to the Complainant to apply for the new role in an effort to avoid a redundancy situation.

On 14th April, the Complainant attended a second consultation meeting. Herein, it was determined that in circumstances whereby the Complainant’s had not applied for the new role, she would be made redundant. The same was confirmed by correspondence dated 11th May 2021 with the statutory payment in relation to the same being issued to the Complainant on 27th May 2021.

On 18th May 2021, the Complainant elected to appeal the outcome of the redundancy process. Herein, the Complainant alleged that she was unfairly selected for redundancy. She submitted that the alleged redundancy was simply a change to the job title, with the primary rationale for the change being a reduction in contracted hours and terms for staff. She stated that the work for which she was employed to do was still being completed in the store and that she should not have been made redundant. Following a meeting in relation to the foregoing, on 3rd June 2021, the Respondent upheld that the dismissal of the Complainant on the grounds of redundancy. By correspondence dated 14th June 2021, the Respondent stated that the Complainant’s role had been made redundant on foot of a company-wide restructuring project. They stated that the rationale behind placing the Complainant’s customer service role at risk on the implementation of a new operating model employed by the Respondent. Finally, they stated that the Complainant failed to apply for the new role that might have acted as an alternative to redundancy.

By submission, the Respondent stated that a genuine rationale for redundancy was communicated to the Complainant. Following the same, they engaged in a through consultation process whereby all alternatives were explored. Only after the same, and the Complainant’s failure to apply for the alternative role, was the Complainant dismissed on the grounds of redundancy. Having regard to the foregoing, the Respondent submitted that the Complainant’s dismissal was substantively and procedurally fair and consequently her application should be dismissed.

At the outset, the Complainant accepted the factual matrix presented by the Respondent. However, she stated that for the majority of her employment with the Respondent, she was engaged on a 25 hour a week contract. When she enquired as to the details of the new role created by the Respondent, she noted that the Respondent only intended to provide 20 hours per week, which was not acceptable to her. She stated that no valid redundancy situation existed as the work for which she was employed was still being completed at the premises. Regarding the new role, she stated that this was simply a re-branding exercise, with the nature of the role remaining much the same.

In summary the Complainant submitted that the rationale of the redundancy process was to remove employees contractually entitled to a 25-hour working week and replace them with those entitled to a 20-hour working week. On this basis, and the fact that the work remained, the Complainant submitted that the alleged redundancy was in fact and unfair dismissal within the meaning of the present Act.

Section 6(1) of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 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(4)c of the Acts expressly lists “redundancy” as a ground of dismissal which shall not be deemed to be unfair. In a situation whereby the Respondent can demonstrate that such a redundancy is substantively and procedurally fair, they may rely on the defence afforded by Section 6(4)C of the Act. In this regard, it should be noted that Section 6(6) of the Acts provides that the onus of proof in relation to the same lies with the Respondent.

Section 7(2) (as amended) of the Redundancy Payments Acts provides that,

“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-

a)      the fact that his employer has ceased, or intends to cease, to carry on the business for the purpose of which the employee was employed by him, or has ceased or intends to cease, to carry on that business in the place where the employee was so employed, or

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, or

d)      the fact that his employer has decided that the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) should henceforward be done in a different manner for which the employee is not sufficiently qualified or trained, or

e)      the fact that his employer has decided that the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) should henceforward be done by a person who is also capable of doing other work for which the employee is not sufficiently qualified or trained.”

In the present case, the Respondent has submitted that they engaged in a large-scale review of their operating model in 2020-2021. On foot of the same, they commenced a project whereby they would seek to reduce their labour costs whilst maintaining an expected level of customer service. Whilst their project appears to be muti-faceted, the relevant portion for the purposes of the present complaint is the migration of the customer service assistant role to a more specialised solution advisor role. The respondent submitted that in the creation of this new role they intend to rely on an employee’s specific product knowledge to reduce overall labour costs. Having regard to the same, it is apparent that this situation falls under the definitions set out in Section 7(2)B and Section 7(2)C listed above.

The issues raised by the Complainant in this regard to two-fold. Firstly, she submits that following the process the Respondent refused to maintain her contractual status, instead offering her a job with a significant reduction in hours. Secondly, she submitted that that in reality the change existed in name only and that the work for which she was hired was still being completed by the Respondent.

Having considered the Complainant’s arguments in this regard, I find that the same do not contradict the definitions set of in Section 7(2). In this regard, an employer in entitled examine its operations to determine what, if any, saving it can achieve by means of re-organisation. This is all the more apparent in the retail industry, whereby technological advances in addition to changes in consumer habits have reduced the requirements for in-store staffing levels. While the Complainant may believe that the changes effected were cosmetic only, it is apparent from the briefing document provided by the Respondent that they amendments to the working practices constitute a significant alteration to their operating model, and one that they were entitled to pursue.

In the matter of Component Distributors (CD Ireland) Ltd -v- Brigid (Beatrice) Burns UDD1854 the Labour Court accepted that “the Respondent was entitled to restructure its business and reduce its workforce if necessary”. The Court went on to state that,

“…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.”

In the present case, it is apparent that the Respondent examined potential alternative positions in an effort to avoid a redundancy situation. In particular, it is apparent that the Respondent provided some form of introductory training in relation to the new role in advance of the process. During the consultation process, the Complainant was invited, on numerous occasions, to apply for this new role. In this regard, I note that the Complainant failed to make such an application and it was only on foot of the same that her redundancy was processed.

Having regard to the totality of the foregoing points, I find that the Complainant was dismissed on the grounds of a valid redundancy and consequently her application under the present Act is not well-founded.

I find that the Complainant was not unfairly dismissed within the terms of the present Act.

Re-organisation, redundancy, alternative role