Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Elizabeth  Keating

Globoforce Limited t/a Workhuman

Representatives

Neil Rafter BL instructed by Burns Nowlan Solicitors

David McCauley, McCann FitzGerald LLP

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-00056848-001

25/05/2023

The complainant was employed by the respondent in the role of Finance Administrator until the termination of her employment on grounds of redundancy on 8 May 2023.

The complainant submitted that her role was not redundant, that she had been unfairly selected for redundancy and that a personal vendetta against the complainant was a factor in the complainant’s selection for redundancy.

The respondent disputed the complainant’s claim and maintained it had fairly terminated the complainant’s employment by reason of redundancy.  

On 21 March 2023, the complainant was notified that her position as Accounts Receivable Collector would likely be made redundant.  In this meeting with the Financial Controller and HR, the complainant advised that she had not undertaken the role of Accounts Receivable Collector for over 6 years.  The complainant first joined the respondent in 2015 as an Accounts Receivable Collector but subsequently left and returned to the respondent in 2016 in a new role, namely that of Finance Administrator working with mid-market clients.  The complainant never received an updated contract for her role as Finance Administrator. The complainant made it clear in the meeting, and in follow-up, that the respondent had made an error.

On 8 May 2023, the complainant’s role as Finance Administrator was terminated without due process or valid reasons.

The complainant requested during the consultation process to remain doing the role of Finance Administrator as it had not been made redundant and was busier than ever.   The complainant had trained a new employee in the role and that employee remained doing the complainant’s role.  The complainant was the only person in the finance department, and the oldest member of the Billing Team, selected for redundancy.   

The complainant submitted there was a personal vendetta against her and that she was possibly selected for redundancy because of her friendship with her former manager. Despite the respondent acknowledging an error in referring to the complainant’s job title as Accounts Receivable Collector, the respondent proceeded with the termination of the complainant’s employment and refused to reinstate her in the role of Finance Administrator.  It was submitted that when the error in title was brought to the respondent’s attention, there should have been a fresh notification in relation to redundancy.  The complainant’s dismissal lacked clear or valid justification and was rooted in personal motives.   The entire process was carried out in an unfair manner and targeted against the complainant; the complainant was dismissed as opposed to her role being redundant.  There was no proper consideration of the complainant’s role compared to that of other employees.  It was submitted that details of a severance package communicated during the consultation process upended and tainted the entire process, was in breach of the Protection of Employment Act 1977 and demonstrated a fait accompli.

The complainant sought an examination of the circumstances leading to the termination of her employment and compensation for her unfair dismissal.

Summary of complainant’s sworn evidence

The complainant began employment with the respondent in 2015 as an Accounts Receivable Collector which involved collection of invoices billed out.  She left the respondent in 2016 and returned a week later in the role of Finance Administrator.  This role meant she no longer took part in collections.  The complainant looked after SMB and mid-market clients.  The complainant was always involved in billing and not just mid-market customers, however as mid-market grew and became busier, the complainant’s role became solely focused on mid-market.

The complainant never had many dealings with the Financial Controller, Mr Mahony; all her dealings were with her former manager.  The complainant and her former manager were very close, and this was not accepted by Mr Mahony.  The complainant outlined an interaction between the complainant and Mr Mahony in relation to year end 2022 where she provided a report on billings and outlook for SMBs. 

In a meeting on 21 March 2023, the complainant was informed the role of Accounts Receivable Collector was at risk of being made redundant.  This was a role the complainant had not carried out in over six years.  Ms McCarthy acknowledged there had been an error based on the complainant’s Workday profile.  The complainant disagreed with the redundancy process because she was told in the initial consultation meeting of 21 March that she was to be made redundant in a role she no longer worked in.   In a meeting in April 2023, the complainant asked for the selection criteria for her role and was told that had already been covered.  The complainant accepted the respondent had acknowledged an error in the complainant’s job title but stated the respondent had never backed up why the error was made and why the complainant was chosen under the wrong role.  The complainant had full ownership of the mid-market role and described there being a lot of moving parts to the role; the role could not exist if a part was removed.  The complainant raised with Mr Mahony best practice selection for redundancy using last in first out but received no response on this.  The complainant disagreed that she was not suitable to do other billing administrator roles with the respondent; she dipped in and out of customer onboarding and corporate orders.  The complainant was shocked and upset that she was the only person in the whole of finance at risk of redundancy.  She didn’t feel that she could come into work as normal after the at-risk meeting and felt the redundancy was a fait accompli.  She didn’t believe she had to apply for other roles in the company as her own role still existed.  She had been put at-risk and selected for redundancy based on the respondent’s identification of the wrong role at the outset of the process; it was the Accounts Receivable Collector role that was at risk, not the role of Financial Administrator.

After being made redundant on 8 May 2023, the complainant moved to look for new employment as she knew there was no going back.  She looked for new jobs through recruitment platforms such as Indeed and Irish Jobs.  She applied for two to three jobs per week.  In or around the end of June 2023, the complainant took up a new position on the same wages.  There are differences between the overall package in her current role and that which she held with the respondent, namely less annual leave, less beneficial health cover, no death in service benefit and no bonus or award structure.

Under cross-examination, the complainant confirmed that she received full remuneration from the respondent until her employment ended on 8 May 2023.  The complainant receives the same salary in her current employment, pro rata her work pattern.  She does not receive benefits in her current role.  The complainant agreed her work with the respondent was focused on SMB/mid-market clients.  It was put to the complainant that there were nil corporate orders in 2023, to which the complainant replied she had ceased doing corporate orders because of the growth in the mid-market client sector.   The complainant accepted that the respondent acknowledged it had used the wrong job title in the meeting of 21 March 2023.  She queried why it was her role that was at-risk if the wrong title was used.  The complainant accepted that she was informed during the consultation meetings and process that aspects of her role would cease altogether and that other parts would be reduced and absorbed by other members of staff, however the complainant said this was about the Accounts Receivable Collector role and not her role of Financial Administrator.  It was the complainant’s belief that what the respondent was saying was incorrect; mid-market was continuing, and the respondent has onboarded new clients.   The complainant accepted that she did not receive the communication mistakenly sent by the Financial Controller during the consultation process.  The complainant agreed that her role was a stand-alone role in the finance team.  The complainant could not recall being sent information about vacancies and believed that she would not have been successful if she had applied for roles.

In re-examination, the complainant said that the person she had trained in to do her role working in mid-market was a comparator for the purposes of last in first out applying and that the complainant would have benefitted from the application of this selection criteria.

The respondent is a multinational business with co-headquarters in Dublin.

The complainant commenced employment with the respondent in 2015 as an Accounts Receivable Collector.  The complainant left and returned to the business in 2016.  From 2020, the complainant’s duties related solely to support of the mid-market segment of the respondent’s business. 

In early 2023, the respondent’s senior leadership team took the decision to restructure its investments based on adjusted business priorities in response to the changing macro-economic environment.  The respondent’s decision resulted in a reduced need for certain roles across various departments and the commencement of a collective redundancy process in Ireland. The mid-market customer segment was identified as an area where investment would cease, and business would reduce over time.  The complainant’s role as Finance Administrator was identified by leadership in the Finance function and the senior executive leadership team as being at risk as it focused exclusively on supporting the mid-market segment.    

The respondent disputed any personal vendetta against the complainant, as alleged.

The complainant was informed that her role was at risk of redundancy in a meeting with the VP Financial Controller and HR on 21 March 2023. 

The complainant consistently disputed the redundancy of her role on the basis that she had been informed of the risk of redundancy by reference to an incorrect role title.  Upon being notified of the error in the complainant’s role title, it was immediately rectified, and the information and consultation process proceeded as the risk of redundancy was based on the complainant’s duties and responsibilities in employment. 

The complainant attended an individual consultation meeting on 6 April 2023 with a view to exploring proposals or alternatives to avoid redundancy of her role.  Following this meeting, the complainant was informed by written notification that unless an alternative solution was identified, it was likely her role would be made redundant.

The respondent engaged extensively with the complainant during the 30-day consultation period, answering queries and providing additional information.  The complainant did not express any interest in alternative positions communicated to her and indicated a preference not to be informed of alternative roles. 

The complainant’s role was confirmed redundant on 21 April 2023 and her employment terminated on 8 May 2023.  The respondent met with the complainant and issued information and documentation relating to the redundancy, which included details of an ex-gratia package on offer which was subject to signing a compromise agreement. The complainant declined the redundancy support package offered.

The complainant subsequently received all statutory and contractual payments owed to her and was permitted to retain a laptop for personal use as a gesture of goodwill.

The complainant’s redundancy was genuine and not based on any personal considerations.  The complainant’s assertions regarding the genuineness of her redundancy were purely speculative.  The respondent’s conduct was at all material times objective and reasonable.  The only role at risk of redundancy in finance was the complainant’s as it was a unique role involving a distinct platform and processes.  It was accepted from the first day of the consultation process that an incorrect title had been used in respect of the complainant’s role but this was not material as it was the duties and responsibilities performed by the complainant that were at risk.  The respondent’s consultation process was extensive; it did in fact meet its intended objective of reducing the numbers ultimately impacted by redundancy.   The complainant had the full benefit of the consultation process.  The termination of the complainant’s employment was wholly or mainly by reason of redundancy and redress for unfair dismissal does not arise. 

Summary of sworn evidence of Ms Niamh McCarthy (Human Resources)

Ms McCarthy joined the respondent in July 2021 as its Human Experience Strategy Partner. 

On 8 March 2023, the witness was made aware of the company decision to restructure and that roles were at risk of redundancy.  There were 128 employees in the respondent informed that their roles were at risk of redundancy.   The respondent engaged in a collective redundancy process and 46 roles were ultimately made redundant. The witness was not aware of any targeting of the complainant for redundancy or of any animus towards her. 

The witness was present at the meeting on 21 March 2023 when the complainant was notified her role was at risk of redundancy.  The role referenced was that of Accounts Receivable Collector, the title used for the complainant on the respondent’s internal system, Workday.  The complainant raised the issue of the incorrect role title at the meeting and the Financial Controller responded straight away; he clarified that it was the complainant’s role in mid-market that was at risk.  The administrative error of referring to the complainant’s role as Accounts Receivable Collector was immediately rectified and verbally clarified.  Following the meeting, there were a number of emails to the complainant explaining that it was the Finance Administrator role that was at risk and that the risk had been assessed based on the responsibilities of the role as opposed to the title.

The complainant believed her role remained in the company and she did not consider it necessary to apply for alternatives.

The complainant was certified by her doctor as unfit for work following the meeting on 21 March 2023 but was deemed fit to engage in the redundancy consultation process following an occupational health assessment on 4 April 2023.  The occupational health report recorded the complainant having expressed a preference for virtual meetings and this was facilitated. 

The witness issued a letter on 21 April 2023 confirming the complainant’s role was redundant and that her employment would terminate by reason of redundancy on 8 May 2023.  Details of an ex-gratia redundancy package, payable in final payroll on receipt of a signed compromise agreement by 3 May 2023, was included with the correspondence. The timeframe for acceptance of the package was extended for the complainant.

Under cross-examination, the witness said the complainant’s role was one of a number of stand-alone roles identified as being at risk of redundancy.  When asked why others on the billing team were not at risk of redundancy, the witness said the complainant was the only person at risk on the team when she became involved.  The witness was aware of an error on 17 April 2023 when a number of employees were inadvertently notified of details of the redundancy package.  It was not unusual to prepare in advance redundancy calculations so as to be able to provide certainty to persons when roles were confirmed redundant.   The witness did not accept that this indicated a pre-determination or fait accompli in terms of those being made redundant.  The Financial Controller had confirmed to the complainant on the first day of the consultation process that it was the responsibilities attached to the complainant’s role that put it at risk of redundancy.  The complainant’s role was in mid-market and it was this role that was at risk of redundancy.  The administrative error came to the respondent’s attention after the meeting.  Clarification was provided to the complainant verbally and subsequently by emails. 

The complainant did not raise with the respondent during the process that the entire process was flawed.  She did submit that her duties were still active and busier than ever and there was follow-up on this by the respondent as the consultation process allowed the respondent time to review and limit potential redundancies.

The role of the witness was to provide HR support once informed of the restructuring decision and of roles at risk of redundancy.  The witness was not involved in identifying the at-risk roles or in identifying the complainant’s role as at-risk.   She worked with the notifying leaders to prepare them for individual consultation meetings and in preparing FAQs. 

Summary of sworn evidence of Mr Conor Mahony (VP Financial Controller)

The witness leads the finance function in Ireland and had overall responsibility for the billing team in Dublin.  The complainant specialised in mid-market/SMB clients; this customer set had very different processes. 

There was a change in the respondent’s investment intentions exiting 2022 which included a senior leadership decision to no longer invest in mid-market.  This was conveyed to the witness by his superiors.  The respondent’s mid-market would not completely disappear; existing customers would be retained and serviced but it was anticipated this would peter out.  Expansion and marketing plans in mid-market were taken away and no new customers would be brought on board. It was also expected that the billing volume would decrease.  There had been no new mid-market deals in 2023.  There were some existing customers who had not yet reached the end of their contracts, so a small number of invoices issued to them.  Since the complainant’s redundancy, a person trained by the complainant, whose role is in a different customer segment, does mid-market work as the need arises. There no longer exists a stand-alone role for mid-market client billing.

The witness accepted that he had referred in the meeting of 21 March 2023 to the complainant’s role title as that of Accounts Receivable Collector.  The witness clarified what the complainant’s role involved and the complainant did not dispute this.  The witness informed the complainant of the investment changes and that this put her role at risk of redundancy.  After the meeting, the complainant continued to raise the issue of the incorrect title having been used when informing her of the risk of redundancy; the inference being that if her title was wrong, the whole process was wrong.   It was explained to the complainant how the incorrect title had been used and there was follow-up with HR on it.  The witness knew that the complainant was upset and didn’t think she looked for other roles with the respondent during the consultation process because she believed her role should not have been selected in the first place.   In relation to emails inadvertently sent by the witness on 17 April 2023 to 11 staff members at risk of redundancy containing draft calculations, the complainant was not one of the 11 staff members involved.  The witness had immediately informed the group working on restructuring so that communications could be sent to the relevant staff members to let them know of the administrative error and to engage with representatives in Dublin.

Under cross-examination, the witness did not accept the emails of 17 April 2023 were deliberate or intentional; it was an administrative error.  The strategic decision made at executive level was that all roles associated with mid-market were at risk of redundancy.  The witness was part of a group that identified the complainant’s role as being at risk of redundancy. The witness confirmed there were no other roles on the billing team identified as being at risk of redundancy.  The complainant’s role was wholly concerned with the mid-market segment.  The witness did not accept the complainant would be able to fulfil other roles on the billing team.   He accepted that the complainant may have helped in a limited capacity across the group, for example covering annual leave of other staff members, however she was not undertaking a role comparable to others on the billing team. The witness did not accept that he had not responded to the complainant when she raised the issue that it was the Accounts Receivable Collector role that was at risk.   This was what was discussed and clarified with the complainant at the first meeting on 21 March 2023, and there were subsequent follow-ups with the complainant.  The complainant did not accept the respondent’s position in this regard.  The witness was never the complainant’s direct line manager.  It was put to the witness that the complainant’s selection for redundancy was with the objective of weaning out one of the older employees who the witness had not been directly involved in recruiting.  The witness referred to the numerous rewards related to the complainant’s work in the mid-market sector that had been approved by him. 

In re-examination, the witness advised that the respondent’s enterprise clients were a unique set and that a selection issue never arose vis-à-vis the complainant as hers was the only role dealing with mid-market clients.  On occasions where the complainant stepped in for other members of the team, she did not undertake the full extent of their roles.   The witness did not work or interact with the complainant regularly; his interaction was with her accounts receivable manager in relation to the wider work of the accounts receivable team.  He was aware of the work the complainant was doing but considered as fanciful the contention he had a personal animus against the complainant.

The complainant’s employment was terminated by the respondent on 8 May 2023 on grounds of redundancy.

The complainant disputed that her role with the respondent was redundant and submitted that she had been unfairly selected for redundancy. 

The Legal Framework

Section 6(1) of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, as amended, (the “1977 Act”) deems a dismissal to be unfair unless, having regard to all the circumstances, there were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal.

Without prejudice to the generality of section 6(1), section 6(4)(b) of the 1977 Act deems for the purposes of the Act a dismissal resulting wholly or mainly from redundancy of the employee not to be an unfair dismissal. 

Redundancy is defined in section 7(2) of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 to 2014, as amended, as follows:-

“… an employee who is dismissed shall be taken to have been 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 purposes 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 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 henceforth 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 henceforth be done by a person who is also capable of doing other work for which the employee is not sufficiently qualified or trained.”

The 1977 Act also makes express provision in relation to selection for redundancy where the circumstances constituting the redundancy apply to one or more employees.  In this regard, section 6(3) of the 1977 Act provides:-

“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(7) of the 1977 Act provides that in determining whether a dismissal is unfair, regard may be had:-

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

(b) to the extent (if any) of the compliance or failure to comply by the employer, in relation to the employee, with the procedure referred to in section 14(1) of this Act or with the provisions of any code of practice …”

It is worth noting the following extract from Charleton J’s judgement in JVC Europe Ltd v Ponisi [2012] 23 ELR 70:-

“In an unfair dismissal claim, where the answer is asserted to be redundancy, the employer bears the burden of establishing redundancy and of showing which kind of redundancy is apposite. Without that requirement, vagueness would replace the precision necessary to ensure the upholding of employee rights. 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.” Redundancy, cannot, therefore be used as cloak for the weeding out of those employees who are regarded as less competent than others or who appear to have health or age-related issues. If that is the reason for letting an employee go, then it is not a redundancy, but a dismissal.”

In this case, the burden of proof rests with the respondent to establish that the complainant’s dismissal resulted wholly or mainly from redundancy and that her selection for redundancy was fair.  

A Genuine Redundancy Situation

Based on adjusted business priorities for 2023, the respondent’s senior leadership team took a strategic decision to cease investment in its mid-market sector, which carried a consequent reduction in staffing levels.  The written notification to the complainant dated 21 March 2023 advised that her role was at risk of redundancy and confirmed the respondent’s decision to restructure investments, in consequence of which it was considering the future of its workforce.  This correspondence further advised of the collective redundancy process, the application of selection criteria where a pool or pools of employees were being considered for redundancy and direct engagement with individuals for whom no pool applied.  Communications in April 2023 reiterated and expanded on the respondent’s decision not to invest in SMB/mid-market and the implications of this decision on the complainant’s role.  It was not in dispute that mid-market customer and product was a distinct and particular segment of the respondent’s business.  There had been plans for sales, marketing effort and expansion in mid-market and these were all put on hold because of the senior leadership decision.  Existing mid-market customers would be serviced pending expiration of contracts but there would be no expansion and no new customers would be brought on board.  The evidence before me was that this is what has occurred.

I accept that the respondent’s investment decisions gave rise to an operational change and a reduction in the number of employees working in mid-market across the business.  The evidence was that employees working in mid-market sales and marketing, project and account management were at risk or made redundant.  

I find that these circumstances align with the circumstances envisaged by section 7(2)(b) of the Redundancy Payments Acts and that a genuine redundancy situation existed at the time.

The complainant’s selection for redundancy

The complainant contested the selection of her role as Finance Administrator for redundancy.  It was the complainant’s view that the role of Accounts Receivable Collector was the role assessed by the respondent as at risk of redundancy.

The evidence demonstrated that the complainant was informed it was her role as Finance Administrator that was at risk and that the error in job title used when notifying the complainant was explained to the complainant.

The respondent’s decision to no longer invest in mid-market carried with it a review of its staffing resources in this segment of the business. The complainant’s role as Finance Administrator was involved in billing administration for mid-market and was therefore notified of the risk of redundancy.  The complainant did not dispute her role in mid-market and indeed submitted emails confirming this.  I note an email from the complainant dated 14 April 2023, in which the complainant referred to having had full ownership of mid-market for the last six years.

The complainant maintained there was a need for her role servicing mid-market clients and that parts of the role could not be ceased or removed.  There was no evidence before me to support the assertion that the role was required on an ongoing basis.  The complainant’s direct evidence was that if one part of the role was removed, the role could not exist.  In my view, this reinforces the redundancy of the role.  The respondent’s decision was to cease investment in mid-market, there have been no new customers brought on board, there is no longer a stand-alone or exclusively mid-market billing role, and residual aspects of the Finance Administrator role are undertaken by another employee who services another segment of the business.  

Whilst it was not disputed that the complainant undertook occasional cover work for others on the finance team, on the complainant’s direct evidence, her role was a stand-alone position focused on mid-market.  I am satisfied that the circumstances constituting the redundancy did not apply equally to another or other employees on the finance team and accordingly section 6(3) of the 1977 Act does not apply.  

I have also considered generally the fairness and reasonableness of the respondent’s identification of the complainant’s role as being at risk and of its selection for redundancy.

The complainant asserted that her selection for redundancy was unfair, motivated by animus or a personal vendetta against the complainant by the Financial Controller and his unacceptance of a close relationship between the complainant and her former manager.  The evidence did not support any such animus or personal vendetta.    The complainant’s direct evidence was that she never had many dealings with the Financial Controller.  There was no evidence to support the assertion that the Financial Controller did not accept the complainant’s relationship with her former manager. The Financial Controller had signed off on the complainant’s annual reviews, salary increases, bonuses and recognition awards. 

The respondent in this case engaged in a 30-day consultation process with the complainant.  There were consultation meetings and written communications between the parties during this period.  Concerns raised by the complainant were addressed by the respondent and the reasoning behind her selection as at-risk explained.  The complainant expressed the possibility of being at risk due to being the oldest member of the team across both collections and billings.  The respondent addressed the concern raised during the consultation process.  There was no evidence adduced of age profile of team members or to support the assertion that the complainant’s age was a factor in her selection as at-risk or for redundancy. 

It was further submitted that the complainant’s selection was predetermined and tainted by reason of the Financial Controller having inadvertently sent draft redundancy calculations to 11 employees.  I cannot accept that the respondent’s preparation of calculations on redundancy packages rendered the process unfair.  I consider the respondent’s actions in and around ascertaining the detail of redundancy packages for relevant employees to have been reasonable so as to ensure that both it and employees were properly informed.  The Finance Manager inadvertently sent emails to 11 employees with redundancy calculations on 17 April 2023.  On realising the error, he contacted the restructuring team to address the issue.  The complainant was not one of the 11 employees to whom the information had been mistakenly sent and did not receive a redundancy payment statement from the respondent until her role was confirmed redundant.  I do not consider there to be any merit in the complainant’s assertion that this was evidence of a predetermined decision to make her role redundant.

I am satisfied that redundancy was the whole or main reason for the complainant’s dismissal and that the selection of the complainant’s role for redundancy was fair and for reasons unrelated to the complainant.

Reasonableness of respondent’s conduct in relation to the dismissal

The evidence demonstrated an information and consultation process with the complainant in relation to the redundancy and that the complainant did not fully engage with that process. 

The complainant adopted the position from the outset of the consultation process that she would only engage in discussion in relation to the risk of redundancy to the role of Accounts Receivable Collector.  On the complainant’s own account, the respondent had acknowledged in its first meeting with the complainant on 21 March 2023 that it had made an error in referring to the complainant’s role title as that of Accounts Receivable Collector.  I am satisfied the respondent clarified for the complainant verbally and in writing, including in emails of 6, 7 and 14 April 2023, how it had erred in its reference to the complainant’s job title and that it was the complainant’s role that was selected at-risk based on the duties and responsibilities of the role and its purpose in serving mid-market clients.  Express confirmation was provided to the complainant that it was the role of Finance Administrator that was at risk of redundancy.   The complainant did not accept the respondent’s explanation and maintained the position that she was not an Accounts Receivable Collector which was the role she had been notified was at-risk.  I must conclude that this position was illogical and unreasonable when considered against the evidence and email exchanges between the parties.  It is a position the complainant maintained to counter all subsequent communications from the respondent in relation to redundancy.  The complainant’s express refusal to accept the respondent’s explanation for the error and her stance that the role of Finance Administrator was not at-risk is evident throughout the consultation process, with the complainant referring to the position at-risk as being that of Accounts Receivable Collector and not Finance Administrator and justifying her lack of engagement on this basis.  An unfortunate consequence of the complainant’s position was that real and substantial consultation between the parties was hindered.  It is noted that the respondent’s consultation process across the business did in fact result in reducing the numbers impacted by redundancy.   

The complainant’s email of 6 April 2023 advised that she would not be putting herself forward, in the context of the consultation process, to work within the respondent in another position when the role she occupied was not redundant.  She requested on 7 April that the respondent refrain from sending her follow up emails regarding same.  The respondent met with the complainant during the consultation process and there were written communications between the parties during the process concerning various matters, including potentially suitable open roles.  The complainant was offered an ex-gratia payment in addition to her contractual and statutory entitlements.

Conclusion

On the evidence before me, I conclude that the complainant was not unfairly dismissed.  The complainant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and the respondent’s processes in this regard, including the selection of the complainant’s role, were fair and reasonable.

For the reasons set out above, I find that the complainant was not unfairly dismissed, and I decide accordingly.

Unfair dismissal – Redundancy – Selection for redundancy – Redundancy process