Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Juan Antonio  Prieto

Currency Fair

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11A of the Protection of Employment Act 1977

CA-00076240-001

11/10/2025

The complainant accepted that the respondent may have been experiencing financial difficulties or undertaking a restructuring process. But the complaint concerns the manner in which the redundancy process was conducted and, in particular, whether the selection process was fair, transparent and reasonable.

The respondent failed to demonstrate that objective selection criteria were properly applied, failed to meaningfully explore alternative employment opportunities within the wider organisation .It stated in its redundancy documentation that a selection matrix would be applied to assess employees against objective criteria including performance, skills, conduct, productivity.

However, no information was ever provided regarding how these criteria were applied; how his scores compared to other employees within the same selection pool; whether any scoring system was used, whether any ranking exercise was undertaken.

The complainant  was never shown any assessment results and was never given any opportunity to review, challenge or respond to any evaluation before the final decision was made.

He had successfully passed his probation period shortly before the redundancy process commenced. His probation review recorded that all assessed categories met expectations, and no concerns were raised regarding performance; productivity; conduct; attendance; skills.

This demonstrates that his work performance was considered satisfactory and that no issues had been identified that would justify selection based on the criteria later relied upon by the Respondent.

Despite this, he was selected for redundancy, and no explanation was ever provided as to why I had been selected over other employees. The termination letter subsequently issued to him confirmed the redundancy decision but again provided no explanation regarding the application of the selection criteria.

CollectiveRedundancyAnnouncement(July 23RD,  2025)

This document contains the initial announcement of the collective redundancy process. It confirms that employees were informed that certain roles were potentially at risk and that a formal consultation process would commence. It provides the background context to the redundancy process.

Collective Consultation Proposal (July 28th,  2025)

This document sets out the Company’s proposed method of selecting employees for redundancy. It states that a selection matrix would be applied using objective criteria including performance, skills, conduct and productivity. However, no scoring, assessment results or explanation of how these criteria were applied to him was ever provided.

 Role at Risk Letter (July 28th,  2025)

This document confirms that his role of Business Insights Analyst was identified as being at risk of redundancy and that a consultation period would follow. It contains no explanation as to how any selection criteria were applied or how I had been assessed against other employees.

Probation Review

This document confirms that he successfully passed his probation period shortly before the redundancy process. All assessment categories were rated as “Meets Expectations” and no concerns were raised regarding his performance, conduct, productivity, attendance or skills.

Termination Due to Redundancy Letter (27 August 2025)

This document confirms the final decision to terminate his employment by reason of redundancy. It does not provide any explanation regarding how the stated selection criteria were applied, how I was assessed, or why I was selected over other employees.

Legal Position

Under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977–2015, even where a genuine redundancy situation exists, the employer must demonstrate that the selection process was fair; objective criteria were applied; the process was conducted in a transparent and reasonable manner.

WRC and Labour Court decisions have consistently recognised that a failure to apply objective criteria transparently; explain the basis of selection; provide employees with an opportunity to understand or challenge the assessment process  may render a dismissal unfair.

During the redundancy process the complainant  was informed that alternative roles would be considered where available. However, no meaningful assessment was carried out regarding whether his skills and experience could be utilised elsewhere within the wider CurrencyFair group. At the time of the redundancy process, internal company communications showed that the wider group was recruiting employees into analytical positions.

For example, internal announcements confirmed the recruitment of two Data Analysts during the same period in which employees, including himself, were being made redundant.

His role as Business Insights Analyst involved: business intelligence; reporting; Tableau development; stakeholder reporting; analytical support; performance analysis. These competencies substantially overlap with analytical and reporting-based functions.

A fair and reasonable redundancy process should have included a genuine assessment of whether suitable alternative employment opportunities existed within the wider organisation before his employment was terminated. No such assessment was communicated to him. No explanation was provided regarding whether opportunities within other teams, business units or jurisdictions had been considered.

The Zai/CurrencyFair group operates internationally, and his role itself involved analytical functions capable of supporting multiple business areas. In these circumstances, it would have been reasonable to assess whether his skills and experience could be utilised elsewhere within the group before dismissal was confirmed.

The existence of ongoing recruitment into analytical functions during the redundancy process raises legitimate questions regarding whether reasonable alternatives to dismissal were properly explored.

BusinessInsightsAnalystJobDescription

This document sets out the duties, responsibilities and required skills of his role as Business Insights Analyst. It demonstrates that his position involved business intelligence, reporting, Tableau dashboard development, stakeholder reporting, data analysis and analytical support across the organisation.

I submit this document in support of Section 2 as evidence that his skills and experience substantially overlapped with analytical and reporting-based functions that continued to exist within the wider Zai/CurrencyFair group during the redundancy process.

 Internal Zai Recruitment Announcement

This document contains an internal company announcement confirming the recruitment of two Data Analysts within the wider Zai group during the same period as the redundancy process. This document in support of Section 2 as evidence that analytical positions continued to be recruited within the organisation while employees, including himself, were being made redundant.

It is relevant because no assessment was communicated to him regarding whether his skills, experience and background as a Business Insights Analyst could be considered for similar opportunities elsewhere within the wider group.

It is also noteworthy that a number of recently hired employees who had been recruited to support transformation and modernisation initiatives were subsequently selected for redundancy after those projects had been completed.

For example, I was recruited into a Business Insights role and became heavily involved in developing reporting processes, dashboards and business intelligence outputs.

Similarly, other recently hired employees were recruited to support specific transformation initiatives and were later made redundant.  In addition, during his employment I became aware of concerns expressed by colleagues regarding previous recruitment exercises where a number of newly recruited employees were subsequently made redundant within a relatively short period of time.

These circumstances raise legitimate questions regarding whether certain recently recruited employees were retained only for the duration of specific projects before being selected for redundancy.

The redundancy had a significant financial and personal impact on him and materially affected his financial position and his ability to proceed with the mortgage application.

The dismissal therefore had consequences extending beyond the loss of his position. It disrupted long-term housing plans, created financial pressure and caused a significant degree of stress and uncertainty.

The respondent failed to demonstrate that the redundancy selection process was conducted in a fair, transparent and reasonable manner.

In particular, no meaningful explanation was provided regarding the application of the stated selection criteria, no scoring, ranking or assessment records were disclosed, no opportunity was provided to understand or challenge the basis of his selection and insufficient evidence was provided that reasonable alternative employment opportunities were properly explored.

A number of recently hired employees involved in transformation and modernisation initiatives were subsequently selected for redundancy after those projects had been completed.

The complainant gave oral evidence on affirmation.

He  referred to the matters in his written submission and said that he disagreed with the selection process and was aggrieved that he had been selected for redundancy.

On having his attention drawn specifically to the legislation under which he made his complaint he confirmed that the protocol followed by the respondent in relation to the collective redundancy process had been correct.

The complaint arises from the collective redundancy process undertaken by the respondent in July/ August 2025 and is confined to an alleged failure to comply with the information and consultation obligations under the 1977 Act. The complaint form confirms that the selected complaint is a Redundancy / Insolvency complaint seeking adjudication under section 11A of the 1977 Act.

There was no breach of the 1977 Act. The Respondent complied in full with its statutory notification, information and consultation obligations, and that the complaint should be dismissed in its entirety.

As a preliminary matter, the scope of this adjudication is confined to the complaint actually referred to Adjudication, namely an alleged contravention of the collective redundancy information and consultation obligations under the 1977 Act. The complaint is not an appeal against the commercial rationale for the restructuring, nor is it a general review of the fairness of the Complainant’s dismissal.

He has raised a number of matters in his complaint which appear to go beyond the statutory scope of section 11A, including allegations concerning the genuineness of the redundancy, alleged misuse of a permanent contract, alleged offshoring, loss of a housing opportunity, cancelled travel and alleged stress-related loss. The Respondent submits that those matters do not expand the jurisdiction of the Adjudication Officer in these proceedings. The issue remains whether the Respondent complied with its information, consultation and notification obligations under the 1977 Act.

In any event, the Complainant commenced employment on 6 January 2025, and his employment ended on 28 August 2025, meaning he had less than twelve (12) months’ continuous service.

Accordingly, the question for determination is a narrow one: whether the Respondent failed to comply with its statutory obligations under the collective redundancy provisions of the 1977 Act. The Respondent submits that, on the documentary evidence, those obligations were complied with in full.

Timeline of Compliance

On 22 July 2025, affected employees were informed that the Respondent would shortly begin a collective redundancy programme and that an information meeting would take place on 23 July 2025. On 23 July 2025, the Respondent held that information meeting regarding the proposed collective redundancy process.

At that meeting, Mr Jan Lorenc, the Chief Executive Officer of the Respondent, explained the Respondent’s severe financial position, including a significant operating deficit. He explained that the proposed restructuring was a last resort and that a thirty (30) day collective redundancy consultation process would commence on 28 July 2025.

Employees were informed that fifteen (15) roles in Ireland were forecast to be impacted and were invited to nominate representatives to participate in the collective consultation process. Ms Hilary Rowe, the Head of Human Resources, explained that if no representatives were nominated, the Respondent would proceed by consulting directly with affected employees on an individual basis.

Following the meeting, employees were invited by email on 23 July 2025 to nominate themselves as employee representatives by close of business on 24 July 2025, and a reminder email was issued on 24 July 2025. In this regard,

On 23 July 2025, and again on 24 July 2025, employees were invited to nominate employee representatives. No employee representatives were nominated. The collective consultation letter later issued to the Complainant expressly recorded that employees had been advised of their right to nominate representatives on those dates and that no individuals had put themselves forward.

On 25 July 2025, the respondent notified the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment in writing of the proposed collective redundancies. The signed notification letter set out the number of employees in Dublin, the proposed number of redundancies, the relevant employee categories, the reasons for the proposed redundancies, the intended consultation arrangements, the proposed selection approach, the support measures for affected employees, and the earliest date on which any redundancy could take effect, namely 28 August 2025. (Copies were submitted)

On 28 July 2025, the respondent commenced formal collective consultation and issued the Complainant with a written collective consultation letter by email. That letter set out the reasons for the proposed redundancies; the number and categories of proposed redundancies; the  proposed method of selecting employees who may be made redundant; the proposed method and timing of dismissals; the proposed redundancy payment position; the position regarding agency workers; and confirmation that formal consultation was commencing on 28 July 2025.

A copy of the collective redundancy consultation letter issued to the Complainant on 28 July 2025, was submitted.

On 28 July 2025, the Complainant was issued with a role-at-risk letter which stated that, following a review of the Marketing Team, the Respondent considered that the role of Business Insights Analyst was no longer required, and that his position was therefore at risk of redundancy.

On 29 July 2025, following departmental engagement arising from the Minister notification, the Respondent circulated the Intreo/DoSP presentation to affected employees.  On 7 August 2025, the Respondent issued a Redeployment / Career Support email to affected employees. That email offered support with broader job searches.  

On 14 August 2025, the Complainant attended an interim individual consultation meeting as part of the thirty (30) day consultation process. The purpose of that meeting was to discuss the Complainant’s at-risk status, any questions the Complainant had, and whether there were any suitable alternatives to redundancy. The Respondent’s position remained that the Complainant’s role of Business Insights Analyst was a standalone Marketing role which was not included in the future operating structure.

On 27 August 2025, the Complainant attended his final individual consultation meeting. At that meeting, the Respondent confirmed that, following the consultation process, no suitable alternative role had been identified and that the Complainant’s employment would therefore terminate by reason of redundancy on 28 August 2025. The meeting record also notes that the Complainant was given an opportunity to raise any further queries.

The Complainant’s employment terminated by reason of redundancy on 28 August 2025. The Respondent’s termination documentation confirms the termination date and the payments due on termination, including payment in lieu of notice.

On 11 September 2025, the Respondent sent a follow-up email to the Minister confirming the final outcome of the collective redundancy process. That email confirmed that the dismissals took effect on 28 August 2025, that no employee representatives had been elected, that consultation was conducted directly with affected employees from 28 July 2025 to 28 August 2025, and that no dismissals took effect before expiry of the statutory thirty (30) day period.

Sections 12 and 14 Compliance: Ministerial Notification and Standstill Period

Section 12 of the 1977 Act requires an employer proposing collective redundancies to notify the Minister in writing of the proposed redundancies. Section 14 provides that the collective redundancies must not take effect before expiry of the statutory thirty (30) day period following the relevant notification. The Respondent submits that both requirements were complied with in full.

The Minister was notified in writing on 25 July 2025 of the proposed collective redundancies. The signed notification letter set out the proposed number of redundancies, the affected categories of employees, the reasons for the proposed redundancies, the consultation arrangements, the proposed selection approach, the support measures for affected employees, and the earliest date on which any redundancy could take effect, namely 28 August 2025.

The Respondent also relies on the subsequent email correspondence from the Department of Social Protection / Intreo dated 28 July 2025. In that correspondence, the Department of Social Protection / Intreo confirmed that it had received notification from the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment of the possibility of collective redundancies at CurrencyFair Limited. The correspondence also provided the Respondent with a redundancy support presentation for affected employees and offered further in-person support if required. T this correspondence is consistent with the Ministerial notification having been received and acted upon during the consultation period.

The collective redundancies did not take effect until 28 August 2025. This is confirmed by the Complainant’s termination documentation and by the Respondent’s subsequent follow-up email to the Minister dated 11 September 2025, which confirmed the final outcome of the process and expressly stated that no dismissals took effect before expiry of the statutory thirty (30) day period.

The period between the Ministerial notification on 25 July 2025 and the effective date of dismissal on 28 August 2025 exceeded the statutory thirty (30) day period. there was full compliance with both the obligation to notify the Minister of the proposed collective redundancies; and the obligation not to permit any collective redundancy to take effect before expiry of the statutory standstill period.

Accordingly, there is no basis for any finding that the Respondent breached the statutory Ministerial notification or standstill requirements.

Sections 9 and 10 Compliance: Information and Consultation

The Respondent complied in full with its information and consultation obligations under the 1977 Act and first sought to facilitate a representative consultation process. Employees were expressly invited to nominate employee representatives on 23 July 2025 and again on 24 July 2025.

No employee representatives were nominated. The collective consultation letter issued to the Complainant on 28 July 2025 expressly recorded that employees had been advised of their right to nominate representatives on 23 July 2025 and again on 24 July 2025, but that no employee representatives had been nominated and no individuals had put themselves forward.

The  Respondent proceeded by providing the relevant information directly to affected employees in writing and by consulting with them individually. The information meeting record dated 23 July 2025 also confirms that employees were informed that, if no representatives came forward, the process would proceed by individual consultation directly with affected employees.

The written collective consultation letter dated 28 July 2025 provided the core information required for the purposes of the consultation process, including the reasons for the proposed redundancies.

the number and categories of employees proposed to be made redundant, the proposed method of selecting employees who may be made redundant, the proposed method and timing of dismissals.

the redundancy payment position; and the position regarding agency workers.

The Respondent also engaged in meaningful consultation and mitigation steps during the consultation period. This is demonstrated by the all-staff information meeting on 23 July 2025; the written collective consultation letter issued on 28 July 2025;  the role-at-risk letter issued to the Complainant on 28 July 2025; the circulation of the Intreo / Department of Social Protection supports presentation on 29 July 2025; the redeployment / career support email dated 7 August 2025; the interim individual consultation meeting on 14 August 202 and the final individual consultation meeting on 27 August 2025.

The Respondent submits that this chronology demonstrates active engagement with affected employees, provision of relevant information, individual consultation, consideration of mitigation steps, and a process conducted over the full statutory consultation period before dismissals took effect.

The Respondent submits that the documentary evidence demonstrates full procedural compliance with the collective redundancy regime under the 1977 Act.

In summary: the Respondent informed employees of the proposed collective redundancy process and the underlying financial rationale on 23 July 2025 and employees were invited to nominate employee representatives on 23 July 2025 and again on 24 July 2025.

no employee representatives were nominated and the Respondent therefore proceeded by providing information directly to affected employees and consulting with them individually.

the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment was notified in writing on 25 July 2025 and formal consultation commenced on 28 July 2025. the prescribed information was provided in writing in the collective consultation letter dated 28 July 2025.

the Complainant’s role was a standalone Business Insights Analyst role within Marketing which was not included in the future operating structure, such that no comparative matrix selection exercise was required in his case.

the Respondent took steps to mitigate the impact of the proposed redundancies, including circulating the Intreo / Department of Social Protection support materials and offering redeployment / career support, CV assistance and interview support; and the Complainant’s employment did not terminate until 28 August 2025, after expiry of the statutory thirty (30) day standstill period.

The complaint is not well founded. The evidence does not establish any breach of the Respondent’s information, consultation or notification obligations under the 1977 Act.

Ms Hilary Rowe, HR Director of the respondent gave evidence on affirmation.

She confirmed that the company had tried all other options before setting out to implement redundancy. The complainant’s team was reduced for four to two and included him. She attended later meetings with the complainant and did discuss with him the possibility of alternative roles, but his was a stand-alone role and was unique in the company.

In fact at the third consultative meeting the complainant stated that he was not interested in alternative roles. She also confirmed that the work previously done by the complainant was not done any more as a stand-alone role.

The respondent made further submissions on the selection criteria and other issues arising from the redundancy but they are not relevant to the complaint, and having regard to my Decision it is not necessary to replicate them all here.

It seems from his written and oral submissions that the complainant intended to make a more general challenge to his redundancy. This impression is reinforced by several references to the Unfair Dismissals Act. He opened his submission by stating that his complaint was ‘under the Unfair Dismissals Act, which it is not.

He did not make his complaint under that Act but rather under the Protection of Employment Act, 1977.

Despite the rather general nature of its name, that legislation sets out the framework for the management and processing of specifically collective redundancies as defined in the Act, and, in particular,  sets out the required consultation with employees.

While the redundancies in this case did fall to be processed under that Act, and the respondent has outlined above the detail of its compliance, it is not the vehicle for general challenges such as was apparently contemplated by the complainant.

The scope of the complaint, as noted by the respondent, is confined to an alleged contravention of the collective redundancy information and consultation obligations under the 1977 Act.

It cannot be a general appeal against the business case for his redundancy, nor a general review of the redundancy. While the complainant said that his complaint concerns the manner in which the redundancy process was conducted and, in particular, whether the selection process was fair, transparent and reasonable, he may not do so under this legislation, except insofar as he can make out a case that its provisions were breached.

Not only did he not do so, but he accepted that the consultation etc. ‘protocol’ had been correct. Accordingly, complaint CA-76240-001 is misconceived and is not well founded.

Complaint CA-76240-001 is not well founded.  

Incorrect legislation