Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Elaine  Godkin

Port Walls Ltd

Representatives

Setanta Solicitors

Lauren Tennyson B.L. instructed by Beauchamps 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-00070027-001

17/03/2025

Port Walls Limited is a construction company and currently has eighteen employees. The complainant commenced employment as an Administrative Assistant in January 2023. She had no prior experience in the construction industry and had previously been employed in administrative roles, mainly in  hospitality .

In early 2025, it became clear that due to an increase in the volume of work, her role was going to change and would need to be fulfilled by someone with a different set of qualifications and training, specifically, someone with experience in Document Control. The addition of commercial projects and additional residential projects required a differing skill set in terms of a “Document Controller” as opposed to the complainant's role as “Development team admin assistant.” The proposed changes would ultimately necessitate the redundancy of the complainant's role as the complainant did not have qualifications or training in these skills.

Clive Curran met with the complainant on March 7th,  2025 and explained to her that due to a change in the respondent's requirements it was proposed to make her role redundant. This is reflected in the complainant's email dated 11 March in which she confirmed that Mr Curran informed her that,

"You started off by saying you wanted to discuss my role within the company as the company was changing, getting bigger and you require someone with more experience, specifically mentioning BCAR & Application".

The complainant offered to undertake training to acquire the necessary skills for the new role. However, she would not have been able to upskill in time for the new projects and work. The Respondent had an urgent need for someone with more experience in both the construction industry and with Document Control.

The complainant was upset at hearing that her role was at risk of redundancy. She was asked to consider whether there were other roles she could perform or consider as an alternative to redundancy.

There was an accounts role available in the office at that time. However, the complainant did not have a background in accounts and again lacked the skills or qualifications for the role, and this was discussed by Mr Curran and the complainant. As the complainant did not have the necessary qualifications and the role was subsequently filled by someone with a bookkeeping qualification.

The Respondent scheduled a meeting with the complainant seven days after the initial at-risk meeting, but the complainant informed him in her email dated March 11th,  that she had been advised to communicate "by email only". In those circumstances, there was no prospect of a further consultation meeting as planned. The complainant had not put forward any alternatives and had declined to attend meetings. She requested her redundancy entitlements and accordingly notice of redundancy issued on 14 March 2025 and the complainant was provided with her final payment. She was also provided with a comprehensive reference.

Redundancy

Section 6 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 specifically provides that an employee may be dismissed if that dismissal results wholly or mainly from “the redundancy of the employee”.

Section 6 of the Redundancy Payments Act 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 –

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

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

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 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

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.

The change in the structure of the organisation which resulted in the redundancy of the complainant's role clearly falls within the definition at (d) above. i.e. that the

 "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."

Following the redundancy of the complainant, the respondent introduced the following changes to the structure of its operations.  For the purposes of Document Control across multiple sites, the Respondent required an experienced Document Controller as opposed to the role previously fulfilled by the complainant, being that of “Development Team Admin Assistant.”

Fair procedures

Section 6(7) of the UD Acts provides that: “in determining if a dismissal is an unfair dismissal, regard may be had… to the reasonableness or otherwise of the conduct (whether by act or omission) of the employer in relation to the dismissal”.

It is submitted that the procedures adopted by the Company were reasonable and complied with best practice. The complainant was put on notice that her role was at risk of redundancy and invited to a consultation meeting to discuss the proposed changes to the workplace and the possible redundancy of her role. While she offered to undertake further training it was determined that this would not be completed in time to meet the company's needs.

Alternative role(s) were considered and discussed. She was invited to put forward proposals or suggestions for the company to consider but did not do so and she declined to attend a planned consultation meeting and informed the Respondent that she would communicate by email only.

In the leading High Court Judgment in Panisi -v- JVC Europe Ltd (2011) IEHC 279 it was held: “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 to be 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.”

The decision to make the Complainant's role redundant was entirely impersonal and was based solely on changes introduced by the Company to address its costs at that time. These changes affected teams across the business, ultimately resulting in a reduction in staff by 24 employees either through redundancies or not replacing leavers.

 Evidence of Clive Curran on affirmation

The witness has been the Financial Controller with the respondent for three years but has been involved with the company for ten. He outlined the growth of the company in recent years and how the requirements of compliance with various regulations had become an increasing burden.

The respondent decided that it needed someone, a ‘document controller’ to take responsibility for the administration of the entire process of compliance activity; a role for which the complainant was not qualified. This was the reason why the complainant’s role was made redundant.

The new role would involve liaison with quality surveyors, after care and follow up and the capacity to ‘close out’ all aspects of the process and the salary for the role would be significantly higher than that paid to the complainant, some €53,000 as opposed to €36,400.

Once this need was identified and as the complainant was the only person in the administrative role he went to see her and told her of the decision to make her redundant.  He agreed that the complainant asked whether she could upskill for the new role and offered her some time to consider the position.

There was a role in accounts but this required someone with a bookkeeping qualification.

The complainant said that she did not wish to engage with the process in person and in due course was made redundant.

In cross examination it was put to the witness that he had given the complainant no notice of the meeting on Friday 7th, or its purpose and that here were no minutes of that meeting. The witness agreed on the latter point but said that the complainant knew he was coming to see her.

He was also asked about the decision making process giving rise to the decision. He said that it had been discussed about two weeks earlier and the witness accepted that the complainant had not been given written notice of the redundancy.

The witness was asked about the role, training requirements and qualifications of a ‘Document Controller. The complainant’s solicitor referred to a number of advertisements for such a role which had been publicly advertised, and all of them around the complainant’s salary range

The respondent summarised by accepting that the process had not been perfect, but there had been a process, nonetheless.

In addition the complainant failed to fully engage either by doing so in person or responding at all on the possibility of alternative employment.

The respondent accepts that the position of ;document controller’ does not require a professional qualification, but the person appointed had twenty years’ experience in the construction industry.

Finally the respondent noted that the complainant had overstated her losses. The actual discrepancy between her earnings was only €87 and she omitted any reference to the statutory redundancy payments made to her. Also, travel expenses cannot be reckoned for the purpose of estimating loss under the Act.

The complainant commenced employment on the  January 9th, 2023, as a Development Team Administrative Assistant on a salary of €32,760.00  which increased to €700.00 per week (€20.00 per hour) on February 2nd, 2025. Her employment was terminated on March 14th, 2025. She had over two years’ service and had been initially based in the Delgany site but moved to the site office in Wexford around September 2023.

She initially reported to Andrew Molloy and around August 2024 began reporting to Seoirse Comerford, who had recently joined the company. Following Mr Comerford’s arrival the complainant says that, along with other staff members in the office, she was subjected to unacceptable behaviour. 

In September 2024, the complainant was arranging to take out a car loan and concerned for her job security she spoke to Mr Charlie O’Reilly Hyland, Director and Mr Max O’Reilly Hyland, management, to confirm that her job was secure prior to taking out the loan. She was assured by the former that it was secure and not to worry.

The complainant raised an informal grievance about Mr Comerford’s behaviour around October 2024 but to her  knowledge, no further action was taken. On March 7th, 2025, she was working as normal when she was approached by Clive Curran, Company Accountant who told her that she was being made redundant as the respondent required someone with more experience in the construction industry for the role.

The complainant offered to undertake any training which they required for the new role. Mr Curran declined this, saying they needed someone to start straight away. She asked Mr Curran who had made the decision to make her redundant and she was told that it had been Mr Charlie O’Reilly Hyland and Mr Comerford. He told her she should identify whether other positions were available within the company by the following week and then told her that a recently vacated office assistant role would not be an option.

The complainant went on certified sick leave on March 10th, 2025, to the 14th.

On March 11th, 2025, Mr Curran emailed the complainant following receipt of her sick certificate and stated that her role was being made redundant as the company required someone with more experience in the construction industry and asking her to make suggestions as to alternatives to redundancy. Her employment ended on March 14th, 2025. She understands that her role continues to exist within the Respondent.

LEGAL SUBMISSIONS

Section 6(1) of the 1977 Act states:-

“(a) 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.”

The respondent may seek to rely on the defence of a redundancy situation existing to a claim of unfair dismissal, however the redundancy must be genuine. There are three main requirements recognised by legislation and case law.  There must be a genuine redundancy situation, the selection for redundancy must be fair and the employer must conduct itself reasonably and follow fair procedures during the consultation process with the employee.

The definition of redundancy was considered in St Ledger v Frontline Distributors Ltd. [1995] ELR 160 before the EAT where the employer had relied on the definition of “redundancy” at s.7(2)(e). It was held by the Chairman of the EAT), at 161-162:

“Redundancy has two characteristics which are of importance in this case. It is impersonal and it involves change.

Impersonality runs through the five definitions in the Act. Redundancy impacts on the job and only as a consequence of the redundancy does the person involved lose the job. It is worthy of note that the EC Directive on Collective Redundancies uses a shorter and simpler definition: ‘one or more reasons not related to the individual workers concerned.’

Change runs through all five definitions. This means change in the workplace. The most dramatic change of all is a complete closedown. Change may also mean a reduction in needs for employees, or a reduction in numbers. Definition (d) and (e) involve change in the way the work is done or some other form of change in the nature of the job. Under these two definitions, change in the job must mean quantitative change. Definition (e) must involve partly, at least, work of a different kind and that is the only meaning we can put on the words ‘other work.’ More work or less work of the same kind does not mean ‘other work’ and is only quantitative change.”

The High Court determination of JVC Europe Ltd v Panisi [2011] IEHC 279 is a leading authority for sham redundancies.. Charleton J commented at [5]:

“It is made abundantly clear by that legislation that redundancy, while it is dismissal, is not unfair. A dismissal, however, can be disguised as redundancy; that is not lawful. Upon dismissal an employer can simply say that the employee was not dismissed for a reason specific to that person but that, instead, his or her services were no longer required, pointing to apparently genuine reasons for dispensing with the services of the employee. In all cases of dismissal, whether by reason of redundancy or for substantial grounds justifying dismissal, the burden of proof rests on the employer to demonstrate that the termination of employment came within a lawful reason.”

The Court approved the requirement for change which was stressed in the decision of St Ledger v Frontline Distributors Ltd. (above). It concluded at [25]:

“The accumulation of evidence proves as a probability that the dismissal of Jerome Panisi from his job as general manager of JVC in Ireland was not a genuine redundancy. Even were that evidence to be absent, the indications in the evidence in favour of a genuine process, the burden of proof being on the employer in this regard, are not strong.”

The complainant set out the provisions of Section 6 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

 The Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 to 2007 provides the legislative basis for assessing redundancies and a valid redundancy situation is deemed to have occurred where a dismissal occurs "wholly or mainly" from a number of situations. (Cited above in respondent submission)

We submit that the burden of proof is on the respondent to show that the redundancy was a genuine redundancy within the act and that fair procedures were followed. Section 6(3) of the Unfair Dismissals legislation provides for fairness in selection for redundancy.

In Employment Law by Murphy & Regan (Bloomsbury Professional, 2017, at paragraph 19.36), the authors state that even if there is a genuine redundancy situation:

“the employer must be able to demonstrate that a particular employee has been compared to others who might have been made redundant and has been selected fairly on the basis of independent, objective and verifiable criteria.”

In Students Union Commercial Services Ltd v Alan Traynor [UDD 1726] the Labour Court stated that:

“In circumstances where redundancy is unavoidable, the employer is obliged to establish reasonable and objective criteria for selection and must apply those criteria fairly.”

In A Sales Director v An IT Company [ADJ-00023978], the WRC referred to cases where an employee is in a standalone position. The Respondent had submitted that there was a “pool of one” for the selection process and as a consequence that selection criteria was not required. The Adjudicating Officer held that in such a position:

“a particular responsibility then arises to ensure that the selection process is fair and objective, and that the sequence of events of identifying the post first, and the person second, is preserved to ensure the principle of impersonality is respected. It is certainly insufficient on its own to submit that a person is automatically in a pool of one because she was the postholder in the position selected for redundancy. It is necessary to show that there was something very specific about the skillset of the person holding the position that renders her unsuited for other positions, and something equally specific about the requirements of the position.”

The Labour Court, in Tanneron Ltd v Conolin [UDD 2151], also its concerns about the fairness of selection in circumstances where selection criteria was applied in the knowledge that it would result in a specific employee being made redundant.

Section 6(7) of the Unfair Dismissal Acts provides that when determining if a dismissal is unfair regard may be had to, inter alia, the reasonableness or otherwise of the conduct (whether by act or omission) of the employer in relation to the dismissal. Case law in this area stresses a clear requirement for the employer to demonstrate reasonableness of conduct when making employees redundant.

In the decision of the WRC in Production Line Lead v Employer [ADJ-00024721] the complaint of Unfair Dismissal was upheld, notwithstanding the finding that a genuine redundancy situation existed.

The Adjudication Officer held that such consultation meetings as the Respondent had engaged in with the Complainant did not constitute real and substantial consultation. The Adjudication Officer also referred to the fact that the Complainant was provided with a list of available posts in the company, but they were all posts for which he did not hold the relevant qualifications. The Adjudication Officer concluded that:

“The consultation process engaged in was not real or substantial and there was no genuine attempt to identify suitable alternative posts for the complainant. I find that the complainant was unfairly dismissed because he was unfairly selected for redundancy.”

In White v Yenom Ltd [UD/993/2009] the Employment Appeals Tribunal stated that:

“In cases of redundancy, best practice is to carry out a genuine consultation process prior to reaching a decision as to redundancy. While in some cases there may be no viable alternative to the making of one or more jobs redundant, whatever consultation process is carried out, the employer who fails to carry out a consultation process risks being found in breach of the Unfair Dismissals Act as such a lack of procedure may lead to the conclusion that an unfair selection for redundancy had taken place.”

A genuine consideration of alternatives to redundancy must also be considered by the employer during the consultation period. In Mulcahy v Kelly [UD/719/90] the Employment Appeals Tribunal noted that

“it is well established that there is an obligation on an employer to look for an alternative to redundancy.”

In Trinity College v Mr. Iftikhar Ahmad [UDD 2030] the Labour Court remarked that while a redundancy situation had been held, “sufficient efforts were not made to seek alternative roles”, and as a result the Complainant was held to have been unfairly dismissed. In Students' Union Commercial Services Ltd v Alan Traynor [UDD 1726] the Labour Court held that:

“The Court was presented with no information to demonstrate that the Respondent carried out a thorough exercise to consider alternative options/ suggestions. The Court can accept that had such an exercise been carried out it may not have identified any alternative positions suitable to the Complainant; however, it seems clear that no such exercise was engaged in. On that basis the Court finds that the approach adopted by the Respondent was somewhat arbitrary and therefore by reference to Section 6(7)(a) of the Act, the dismissal of the Complainant was unfair.”

In Redmond on Dismissal Law by Denis Ryan (Bloomsbury Professional, third edition, 2017, at paragraph 15.43) the author states that where an employee’s original qualification is no longer good or sufficient owing to a desire on the employer’s part to improve work standards, “Employees should be given a reasonable opportunity to obtain any necessary qualifications to improve up-skill.”

In Production Line Lead v Employer, ADJ-00024721 the complaint under section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 was upheld by the Adjudication Officer, Ms Maria Kelly. In this matter it was found that while a genuine redundancy situation existed, the employer had not acted fair and reasonably. The Adjudication Officer found that the respondent did engage in consultation meetings with the complainant but, in her opinion those meetings did not constitute real and substantial consultation. The Adjudication Officer in her findings also referred to the fact that complainant was provided with the list of available posts in the organisation but, they were all posts for which he did not hold the relevant qualifications. She held that, as the manager who was consulting with the complainant had not seen his CV there could not have been a genuine attempt to find an alternative post for him in the organisation.

In Free v Oxigen Environmental UD206/2011 the Employment Appeals Tribunal stated  that prior to making an employee redundant the consultation with the employees should be real and substantial. In Mulligan –v- J2 Global (Ireland) Ltd (UD/993/2009) the tribunal stated:

“In cases of redundancy, best practice is to carry out a genuine consultation process prior to reaching a decision as to redundancy. While in some cases that may be no viable alternative to the making of one or more jobs redundant, whatever consultation process is carried out, the employer who fails to carry out a consultation process risks being found in breach of the Unfair Dismissals Act as such a lack of procedure may lead to the conclusion that an unfair selection for redundancy had taken place.”

The complainant had over a year’s service at the time of her dismissal. Section 6 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 presumes that her dismissal was unfair. The burden of proof rests on the Respondent to prove that her dismissal was fair and that a genuine redundancy situation existed. It is submitted that the Complainant was unfairly selected for redundancy for the following reasons:

She was not provided with any notice that she was at risk of redundancy prior to the impromptu meeting of March 7th, 2025. She was unable to prepare for the meeting or informed that she was at risk of redundancy and was simply informed that her role was being made redundant, but was then informed that the reason for her redundancy was that she did not have enough experience for the role.

The complainant’s role continues to exist and she was not provided with a selection matrix as to why she was selected for redundancy and no consultation period took place. She had been carrying out the same role with the same duties for two years with no prior issues raised as to her experience or qualifications.

The complainant was not provided with any reasoning in writing as to why she could not continue in the role or what alleged qualifications or experience she was lacking. She offered to undertake any training which may be required to continue in her role. This was refused with no consideration and she was informed that she was required to find alternatives to redundancy.

The respondent did not make any efforts to find or propose alternatives to redundancy and instead placed the burden to do so on the complainant.

She was informed that she could not apply for an administration role in head office which was vacant and the alternatives to redundancy proposed by her were dismissed without any consideration, demonstrating that the outcome was pre-determined. The Complainant was the sole employee made redundant.

She was not offered any right of appeal to the decision to make her redundant. She was unfairly selected for redundancy, and therefore was unfairly dismissed.

The complainant gave evidence on affirmation. She confirmed her starting date and salary and described her functions.

These included collating a compliance reports, liaising on Health and Safety issues with other employees and also liaison with homeowners. She did  confirm that before joining the respondent she had no previous construction industry experience.

She initially reported to one of the Directors. Her work had been the subject of praise and she understood on the basis of commitments given to her that her job was secure and in February 2025 was given a wage increase.

She said that she was given no prior indication that redundancy would be discussed at the meeting with Mr Curran on March 7th, 2025. On the basis of the email of March 10th, it appeared that what the company was looking for in the document controller role was something she already did.

She stated her loss of earnings at €24,300 (including travel expenses) and stated that she had applied for ninety seven positions.

In cross examination she stated that she was not privy to any discussion about the expansion of the company.

She denied that she was aware that the purpose of Mr Curran’s visit to the site was to meet her but agreed that he did discuss redundancy when they did meet, and  accepted that she was told that the company was looking for someone who could manage the building compliance regulations.

She was asked to identify possible roles but the only vacancy was in accounts and she was not qualified for it.

The witness confirmed that she said that she would not be suggesting alternative roles. She also stated that her decision not to participate in person was on the advice of her doctor.

It was put to the witness on the basis of the documentary evidence that the difference between her previous and current salary was not €200 but only €87.

In summing up it was submitted on behalf of the complainant that, in relation to the first meeting on March 7th, she had been given no notice of the purpose of the meeting, no minutes were provided and the complainant was simply told that she was being made redundant.

This continued and there was no process following that either.

The complainant disputes the level of qualification and experience stated to be required by the new role and that there was no substantial difference between the work carried out by the complainant and the proposed new role.

The sequence of events is set out above in the written submissions and evidence. The key events took place over a short period spanning only one week.

It starts with a visit by Mr Curran to the complainant’s place of work. It is not in dispute that Mr Curran did not provide the complainant with any indication as to the nature of his business in making the visit. Indeed the complainant said that she did not even know that he was coming to meet her specifically.

When he did arrive it was to convey to the complainant the stark news that she was to be made redundant.

While accepting in oral submissions that the process was ‘not perfect’ the respondent submitted.

‘That the procedures adopted by the Company were reasonable and complied with best practice. The complainant was put on notice that her role was at risk of redundancy and invited to a consultation meeting to discuss the proposed changes to the workplace and the possible redundancy of her role.

The complainant was put on notice of her redundancy at what was to her, the surprise meeting, on March 7th. There was little about it that could be considered to be compliant with ‘best practice,’ to which I return below.

She submitted a medical certificate on the next working day, Monday 10th which then elicited from Mr Curran a summary of the position in writing that had been orally conveyed to her on Friday regarding the reasons for the redundancy and her entitlements. This communication should have preceded his visit rather than followed it as a response to the complainant falling ill as a result of it.

Mr Curran somewhat defensively took issue with the complainant having told co-workers after he met her that she had been ‘sacked’ at the Friday meeting which he said, ‘is not the case and this was not discussed’.

It is perhaps legally imprecise to describe what transpired between the parties as a ‘sacking’ but in more colloquial terms the complainant could be forgiven for seeing it that way. It was to have the same outcome within a very few days and Mr Curran’s sensitivity on this point is misplaced.

The complainant replied the following day, March 11th and gave her version of the meeting the previous Friday.

She referred to it as ‘unscheduled and unexpected.’ It conveys her sense of shock at the abruptness of the news and its significant impact on her. She had previously been given high level assurances about the security of her employment.

It concluded with a request for details on her redundancy payment and when she might expect to get it. She also told the company that she had been advised to communicate by email only. In her oral evidence she clarified that this had been by her GP. (She was on certified sick leave for that week).

Extraordinarily, this seems to have been the end of the process and the complainant’s employment terminated while she was still on sick leave three days later.

To describe this as being ‘not perfect’ is straining the definition of euphemism to breaking point.

As to whether a genuine redundancy existed the respondent made a very poor fist of explaining the nature of the position with which he intended to replace the complainant. The elevation of the words ‘document controller’ to  some term of art was most unconvincing.

It was accepted that there is no such role formally established in the construction industry, there is no training course or professional qualification of any sort. A great many people could describe the work they do as being that of a ‘document controller.’

It would not have required great imagination to come up with a description of the role that better captured its essence, e.g. compliance officer or some such might have made it easier to distinguish  it from the complainant’s role.

That said, I somewhat reluctantly accept that it is unlikely that a company would create a new role costing it over €16,000 per annum more unless it made business sense to do so, and that the new role involved a level of technical expertise that the complainant did not have and could not easily, or at least quickly acquire. (I note that there were other redundancies in the company).

I do not accept the complainant’s submission that her role still exists in the company.

However, that leaves the issue of the process conducted by the respondent, which to a large extent renders the validity of the redundancy irrelevant.  

More usually, the issues that arise when discussing procedural fairness in the context of redundancy relate to the selection process and while that does not arise here, there remains a broader right to procedural fairness which derives from both constitutional and contractual rights. 

The sort of requirements that arise in that context are the giving of proper notice and a meaningful consultation process, providing reasons, the proper consideration of alternatives, due consideration of any response from the employee etc. There is an onus on an employer to actively seek to find alternatives to redundancy.

In this context the complainant has referred to Production Line Lead v Employer [ADJ-00024721] above, and also In Free v Oxigen Environmental UD206/2011 , Mulligan –v- J2 Global (Ireland) Ltd (UD/993/2009) which cannot be distinguished on their facts from this complaint.

In non-legal terms, the requirements are those of courtesy and respect which are first cousins of fair procedure and they were almost totally absent in this case.

In legal terms, the requirements are clearly set out in the authorities referred to and cited in the complainant’s written submission. They are full of references to the standard of consultation that is required and I will apply those same standards .

The first engagement by the respondent on March 7th, 2025, was deplorably lacking in any of these considerations.

While he cavilled about whether the complainant knew he was coming to visit her, it is not in dispute that she had no idea that he was coming to give her notice of the termination of her employment by reason of redundancy. This was procedurally  unacceptable and disrespectful.

The complainant should have been given formal written notice of the meeting and its purpose and critically, advised of her right to have a companion or support person at the meeting. This is what best practise looks like for such a meeting. 

Given these facts, the immediate impact on her and its immediate consequences for her health are not surprising. it is hard to understand how Mr Curran did not anticipate that this was a possible, even probable outcome.

Over a year later the respondent could not convincingly explain to the hearing the nature of the new role and how it differed from the complainant’s. Although I have accepted that on the balance of probability it was a new role,  it remains quite clear that he did not explain it to her at the time, nor, as noted to the hearing.

She was certainly entitled to an explanation that went beyond the statement that the respondent needed someone with ‘more experience’ and she was entitled to have it presented to her in writing and in a proper, formal business context.

Accordingly, I find that the manner in which the redundancy was managed falls well short of the requirements of procedural fairness (and best practice) and her complaint that her dismissal was procedurally unfair is easily upheld.

In making my award I have taken into account and discounted the redundancy payment to the complainant and the respondent’s challenge to the accuracy of the stated losses as being €200 per week, which was not rebutted by the complainant.  I have not included the claim for travel expenses which is ineligible for consideration.

I uphold complaint CA-70027-001 award the complainant €7,500.00 in compensation for the losses attributable to the dismissal.

I uphold complaint CA-70027-001 award the complainant €7,500.00 in compensation for the losses attributable to the dismissal.

Redundancy. Procedures, consultation,  unfair dismissal