Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Kshitiz  Agarwal

Jacobs Engineering Ireland Limited

Representatives

Tim Dixon BL instructed by Fiachra Baynes Baynes And Co LLP

Cara Jane Walsh BL  instructed by Alva McDermott McCann FitzGerald LLP

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00068964-001

31/01/2025

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

CA-00068964-002

31/01/2025

The complainant submits that he was employed by the respondent from 7th of March 2022 to

23rd of December 2024 when he was dismissed from his role following a redundancy process which he submits was unfair.  The complainant submitted a claim of unfair dismissal in this regard on 31st of January 2025 as well as a claim under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 on the same date.

The complainant submits that the respondent redundancy consultation and appeal process was flawed: that no adequate explanation was given for his redundancy and no alternative role was offered despite ongoing recruitment.

The respondent denies this submitting that the complainant was dismissed after a fair and transparent redundancy process brought about by the respondent business ceasing to operate in Thermal Energy generation, the specialism in which the complainant was employed. 

The Complainant submits that in or around June 2024, the Complainant was approached by the respondent and told that a business review would take place and that this review might lead to redundancies

The Complainant submits that at the same time, he was advised that he could avoid a formal redundancy process by accepting an offer of mutual termination.

The Complainant, through his solicitor, responded to this offer sought further information and questioned why such a process was being initiated when no specific redundancies had yet been identified.

 The Complainant submits that the Respondent’s reply was formulaic and failed to provide a meaningful explanation for why the Complainant had been approached in this way.

By letter dated 24 July 2024, it was confirmed that the Complainant would not accept the offer of voluntary redundancy.

The Complainant submits that an “at risk” meeting took place on 6 August 2024 wherein he was told that the Respondent intended to discontinue its activities in thermal energy and that he was the only employee in the Irish and UK operations who specialised in thermal energy.

On that basis, he was invited to a consultation meeting on 12 August 2024 with Mr CC Operation manager and consultation manager for the redundancy process and Ms J H

The Complainant submits that the Respondent also stated that he was the only employee affected by the proposed redundancy. Further consultation meetings followed on 23 August and 23 September 2024.

In the eventual confirmation of redundancy, the Complainant’s role was described as “Project Management Engineering Professional Specialist”, with the specialism identified as thermal.

 The Complainant submits that this is the first time such description was applied to his role and submits that the Respondent distorted or narrowed his role so as to justify selecting him for redundancy.

The Complainant was told that he had a right of appeal and an appeal hearing took place on 24 October 2024.

The complainant submits that his request to be accompanied by a solicitor at the appeal hearing was refused on the basis of company policy.

 The Complainant was not a trade union member, and the suggestion that he could instead be accompanied by a colleague was impractical.

 The appeal meeting was attended by Ms F., as Chair, Ms H., Employee Relations Consultant, and the Complainant.   The outcome of the appeal was that the redundancy decision was upheld and the complainants employment terminated on 23 December 2024.

The Complainant submits that the consultation and appeal process was flawed: that no adequate explanation was given, and that no alternative role was offered despite ongoing recruitment in the organisation

He seeks maximum compensation and/or reinstatement because he has not worked since termination.

The submission also criticises the Respondent’s approach to alternative employment.

Although the Complainant was encouraged to apply for other roles within the organisation and was offered assistance with drafting his CV, no actual alternative role was offered to him.

Overall, the Complainant’s position is that the redundancy process was pre-determined, unfair, and directed only at him.

The respondent submits that in June 2024, the Respondent informed the Complainant of a likely reorganisation within its E&P business, specifically a move away from Thermal Energy towards Transmission & Distribution, Low Carbon Fuels, and Industrial Decarbonisation.

The respondent submits that at that stage, the Complainant was offered a voluntary redundancy process with a mutually agreed exit

the Respondent submits that the complainant at this stage had not yet been placed “at risk” of redundancy.

The complainant in response to this offer rejected same via a letter from his solicitors and raised a number of issues in respect of the offer made

Following the complainant’s rejection of the voluntary redundancy option, the Respondent formally began a reorganisation.

The respondent submits that in August 2024, the Complainant was placed “at risk” because his role which specialised in Thermal Energy, was an area in which the business had decided to cease operations in the UK and Ireland.

The respondent submits that Three consultation meetings took place between August and September 2024. During these meetings, the Respondent explained the business rationale, addressed the Complainant’s concerns about his role and job title, and explored possible alternative roles.

The respondent submits that assistance was given to the complainant in applying for other roles with the organisation and its wider business partners

The respondent submits that the complainant was provided with assistance with his CV and with preparing for interviews for other roles.

In addition, it is submitted that the respondent  reached out to Talent acquisition partners to identify suitable roles for the complainant

The respondent submits that it also sought to ascertain what particular transferrable skills the complainant had which could be used in other roles the respondent sought to determine this through discussion with the complainant

The Complainant applied for several internal roles but was unsuccessful.

The respondent submits that on 23 September 2024, the Respondent confirmed the Complainant’s redundancy, stating that no reasonable alternative role had been found.

He was offered statutory redundancy and chose to work his three-month notice period, ending on 23 December 2024.

The Complainant appealed the redundancy decision, arguing that the process was unfair, predetermined, based on an incorrect job title, lacked objective selection criteria, breached redundancy policies, and failed to properly support him in finding alternative employment.

The appeal was heard by Ms F., who rejected all grounds of appeal.

The respondent submits that Ms F concluded that the Respondent had followed its redundancy procedure, that the Complainant’s role was genuinely focused on Thermal Energy, that no comparable alternative roles were available, and that reasonable support had been provided.

Ultimately, the appeal was not upheld, and the Complainant’s employment ended on 23 December 2024, with statutory redundancy paid afterwards.

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

CA-00068964-002

31/01/2025

Section 6 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, as amended (the “1977 Act”) provides:

“(4) … the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, not to be an unfair dismissal, if it results wholly or mainly from one or more of the following:

(a) the capability, competence or qualifications of the employee for performing work of the kind which he was employed by the employer to do,

(b) the conduct of the employee,

(c) the redundancy of the employee, and

(d) the employee being unable to work or continue to work in the position which he held without contravention (by him or by his employer) of a duty or restriction imposed by or under any statute or instrument made under statute…

(6) In determining for the purposes of this Act whether the dismissal of an employee was an unfair dismissal or not, it shall be for the employer to show that the dismissal resulted wholly or mainly from one or more of the matters specified in subsection (4) of this section or that there were other substantial grounds justifying the dismissal.

(7) …in determining if a dismissal is an unfair dismissal, regard may be had, if the adjudication officer or the Labour Court, as the case may be, considers it appropriate to do so—

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

2. to the extent (if any) of the compliance or failure to comply by the employer in relation to the employee with [any dismissal procedure] or with the provisions of any code of practice...”

3.3

3.4

3.5

Section 7(2) of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 (the “1967 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—

(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 where he was so employed have ceased or diminished or are expected to cease or diminish.

It is submitted on behalf of the Respondent that the Complainant’s claim of unfair dismissal on the grounds of redundancy is without merit.

Alleged predetermination and process

In Mulligan v J2 Global (Ireland) Ltd (UD993/2009; 2010), in respect of redundancy, the EAT 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 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.”

Issue for Determination

The Complainant submits that he was unfairly dismissed by the Respondent. The Respondent denies this and submits that the dismissal arose by reason of redundancy, following a fair consultation process during which alternative roles were sought and considered.

The Complainant disputes that there was a genuine redundancy situation. He relies, in particular, on the earlier voluntary exit proposal, including a proposed payment of €53,000, which he rejected.

The Respondent rejects the proposition that the redundancy was predetermined submitting that the Thermal Energy specialism in which the Complainant’s role existed, ceased at an organisation-wide level. It submits that, as a result, there was no continuing requirement for the Complainant’s role.

Genuine Redundancy

In considering this matter, I am mindful that a genuine redundancy generally depends on whether there was a real business reason for the disappearance or reduction of the role, rather than a desire to remove a particular employee.

The Respondent’s position is that the Thermal Energy business unit, in which the Complainant’s role existed, ceased at an organisation-wide level. It submits that, as a result, there was no continuing requirement for the Complainant’s role.

The Respondent submits that this decision was justified by objective business requirements, including costs, market challenges, and a strategic refocus towards other products and service areas. It further submits that the decision formed part of the business’s growth and development in the engineering and construction industry and had no bearing on the Complainant as an individual, employee, or on his conduct or performance.

The respondent advised that it had in June 2024, the Respondent informed the Complainant of a likely reorganisation within its E&P business, specifically a move away from Thermal Energy towards Transmission & Distribution, Low Carbon Fuels, and Industrial Decarbonisation.    The respondent stated that at that stage, the Complainant was offered a voluntary redundancy process with a mutually agreed exit which he refused via correspondence from his solicitor.

Director of Operations, Mr. CC, gave evidence that in August 2024 the Complainant’s role was placed “at risk” due to a wider business reorganisation involving a decision to move away from Thermal Energy in the UK and Ireland. Mr. CC stated that this decision was taken at a more senior level and had been communicated to him by Mr. JN, VP and Head of E&P within the Respondent.   The Respondent stated that it had made known its decision to move away from Thermal Energy and into other business areas.

Mr C advised the hearing that a meeting took place on 5 August 2024 and was attended by Mr C and the Complainant.  Mr. C stated that at this meeting it was explained to the Complainant that the E&P organisation of the Respondent was undergoing streamlining at an EU level and that the decision had ultimately been reached to “cease the entire Thermal Energy operations in UK and Ireland Performance Units respectively”  The respondent that the termination of the Thermal Energy practice was due to low levels of work and growth and it was further clarified that this decision would directly impact on the Complainant’s role, which specialised in Thermal Energy.  Mr. C stated that the Complainant was at this stage formally put “at-risk” of redundancy and invited by Mr C to the first consultation meeting and was informed that he could bring a trade union representative or colleague as a companion, which he declined.  Mr C advised the hearing that three consultation meetings took place between August and September 2024 further consultation meetings took place with the redundancy of the complainants’ role being confirmed on 23 September 2024 after which he was offered an appeal which took place on 24th October 2024.  The complainant’s employment ended on 23 December 2024.

Mr. CC advised the hearing that the Complainant was the sole individual whose specialism was Thermal Energy and stated that on that basis, his role was at risk once the decision was taken to discontinue that area of work.

Mr. CC stated that the Complainant’s role was that of “Project Management Engineering Professional Specialist”, with a thermal specialism.

The Complainant disputed that he worked solely in the Thermal Energy specialism and stated that he had also worked in other areas. Mr. CC accepted that the Complainant had carried out other tasks towards the end of his tenure but stated that this was due to the company’s decreasing involvement in Thermal Energy and the resulting lack of sufficient work for the Complainant in that area.

The Complainant stated that he had other skills and specialisms and that his role was not confined to Thermal Energy. Mr. CC acknowledged that the Complainant had carried out other tasks but stated that the Complainant’s area of work was niche and that it was difficult to identify other roles to which he could be redeployed.

Mr. CC stated that the Complainant had worked in a niche and specialised area. He said that, through discussions with the Complainant, he attempted to identify other areas or roles for which the Complainant might be suited and to understand the Complainant’s particular skillset. Mr. CC stated that the Complainant was guarded in those discussions, which made it difficult to obtain clear answers.

Alternative Employment and Redeployment Efforts

The Respondent advised the hearing that it sought alternative roles for the Complainant within the organisation and with its business partners. Mr. CC stated that he spoke with the Respondent’s Talent Acquisition team and contacted colleagues with a view to putting the Complainant forward for available or upcoming roles.

Mr. CC stated that the Complainant was encouraged to update his internal profile, provide an updated CV, identify roles of interest, and engage with internal opportunities. He also stated that he made introductions and sought support from career colleagues.

Mr. CC advised that the Complainant applied for a number of roles but was unsuccessful because the relevant hiring teams did not consider him suitable for those positions. Mr. CC stated that he was not the decision-maker in respect of those appointments, but that he had put the Complainant forward for roles where possible.

Mr. CC stated that the Complainant had worked in a niche and specialised area. He said that, through discussions with the Complainant, he attempted to identify other areas or roles for which the Complainant might be suited and to understand the Complainant’s particular skillset. Mr. CC stated that the Complainant was guarded in those discussions, which made it difficult to obtain clear answers.

The Complainant advised the hearing that the Respondent did put him forward for some alternative roles but stated that he was required to apply for those roles in the same way as any other candidate. He submitted that more could have been done to assist him in securing an alternative role.

The Respondent’s witness Mr. CC advised that the Complainant sought assistance with his CV, which he stated was reviewed by himself and Ms. JH, Employee Relations Consultant and that he also sought assistance with interview preparation. Mr. CC stated that recruitment support was contacted in this regard.

Mr. CC stated that, although the complainant referred to other tasks, he did not elaborate on this and did not provide sufficient detail when asked to elaborate during the consultation process. Mr. CC stated that the Complainant did not dispute that he was Head of Capability in Thermal Energy, which Mr. CC submits was the core nature of his role.

Mr. CC added that despite discussions and consultations with the complainant he never reached the level of detail required to identify precisely what those other tasks were, as the Complainant did not provide that information.

The evidence was that, at meetings, the Complainant declined to elaborate on a number of matters and, in response to direct questions, repeatedly stated that he wished to protect his  position.

The Respondent stated that the Complainant’s role specialised in Thermal Energy. It accepted that he may have performed other tasks but submitted that these were not his core role.

Mr. CC stated that the Complainant applied for approximately seven opportunities but did not initially share the details of those applications with him.

Mr. CC added that, once the Complainant did share details of the opportunities, he attempted to escalate matters and spoke with hiring managers.

Mr. CC stated that there were ongoing review and liaison with Talent Acquisition to identify upcoming opportunities. He also stated that he told the Complainant that he would not be held to a deadline if, for example, he was awaiting an interview, and that the Respondent could be flexible in that regard.

Mr. CC stated that the Complainant’s skillset was niche and that the Complainant had been reluctant to share information that might have assisted in identifying alternative roles.

Mr. CC stated that he arranged for a Renewable Advisory role to be opened early so that the Complainant could apply. He stated that the Complainant’s seniority and specialism made the search for suitable opportunities challenging.

The Respondent advised the hearing that, after the Complainant raised concerns about interview preparation and CV reviews, he was put in contact with Career Partners, who directed him to relevant training resources.

The Respondent stated that the Complainant’s CV was reviewed and that feedback was provided.

Appeal Process

Ms. HF gave evidence in respect of the Complainant’s appeal meeting, which took place on 24 October 2024. She outlined the grounds of appeal submitted by the Complainant and how she dealt with each ground.

Ms. HF stated that the Complainant was not particularly forthcoming in providing information at the appeal hearing. She stated that, in response to her questions, the Complainant repeatedly said that he wished to protect his position and referred her instead to documentation. Ms. HF stated that the Complainant asserted that the organisation was not moving away from Thermal Energy and that it continued to recruit individuals in that area.

In that regard, the Complainant referred to Mr. JK and to a graduate recruit who had been taken on. Ms. HF stated that she made inquiries into the nature of the roles involved and was satisfied that they were not Thermal Energy specialisms.

Ms. HF advised the hearing that she also considered whether the Respondent had complied with its own policies and procedures in carrying out the redundancy process and was satisfied that it had.

Ms HF advised the hearing that she had on 4 December 2024, following the appeal investigation confirmed that the appeal was not upheld. The Complainant’s employment with the Respondent ended on 23 December 2024 after he had finished working out his notice period. A letter from the Respondent dated 8 January 2025 to the Complainant confirmed that the Complainant’s employment ended on 23 December 2024 and that the statutory redundancy payment was paid to him.

Complainant’s Evidence

The Complainant advised the hearing that he was approached by Mr. CC in June 2024, told that the company was changing strategy, and offered an exit package to the amount of €53,000. He stated that this was also offered to him in writing.

The Complainant stated that he contacted his solicitor, who responded by raising a number of issues concerning the package offered. The Complainant stated that he refused the offer.

The Complainant advised the hearing that he was notified in early August that his role was at risk of redundancy and that a number of consultation meetings followed. He stated that, as part of this process, Mr. CC advised him that he could apply for other roles within the organisation, including live roles. The Complainant stated that he applied for a number of roles and asked Mr. CC to support him in applying for roles in a sister organisation, but that he was unsuccessful.

The Complainant also outlined his efforts to find work outside the Respondent organisation since his dismissal. He stated that he had been successful in three applications but that the offers were withdrawn before being finalised, one due to a reference issue. He also stated that he had set up his own company, spoken at promotional events, and submitted four tender applications, but had not yet secured paid work.

The Complainant confirmed that he had not secured paid work since his dismissal. He outlined his job-search efforts and stated that he found it difficult to navigate the job market, particularly as many roles at his level arise through local knowledge.

The Complainant stated that he did not consider that Mr. CC had supported him in finding an alternative role. He referred to a potential Advisory role within the company which was ultimately put on hold. The Respondent’s evidence was that the role remains on hold and has not been filled.

The Complainant submitted that the appeal process was unfair because Ms. JH had been involved previously in the process. The Respondent clarified that Ms. JH’s role at the appeal was as note-taker only and that Ms. HF was the decision-maker. The Respondent further stated that Ms. HF met with the Complainant to allow him to expand on his grounds of appeal and engaged with him after the meeting. The Complainant disputed that there was meaningful engagement after the appeal meeting and stated that he received one email from Ms. HF asking him two questions, to which he replied.

The Complainant asserted that the appeal hearing was unfair and predetermined. When questioned at the hearing, he stated that he did not know what documentation had been received or reviewed by Ms. HF. The Respondent stated that Ms. HF had identified in her letter to the Complainant the documentation reviewed as part of the appeal process.

The Complainant disputed that he was the only person involved in Thermal Energy but accepted that he had described himself as Thermal Energy Group Lead in earlier strategy documents which he had authored. He also disputed that he was the only person working in a Thermal Energy specialism in Ireland and disputed that the Respondent was no longer pursuing Thermal Energy in the UK and Ireland.

The Complainant asserted that his role had not become redundant and that the Respondent had separately and previously raised an issue concerning his billability or lack of billable hours. The Respondent rejected this and stated that billability played no part in the redundancy decision or process. The Respondent’s position was that the redundancy arose from a business decision to move away from Thermal Energy markets.

The Complainant disputed that he was provided with assistance in applying for alternative roles. The Respondent referred to evidence that Mr. TR, Career Partner in the Respondent had been contacted to assist the Complainant and had sent his CV to three different managers. The Respondent also stated that Mr. TR had provided resources to assist him. The Complainant described this as having been sent links and stated that he had specifically requested help with his CV and the job market but did not receive the level of assistance he had sought.

The Respondent stated that the Complainant’s CV was reviewed by Ms. JH and Mr. CC. This was put to the complainant at the hearing and his response to this at the hearing was “if you say so”.

The Complainant advised the hearing that he was offered a voluntary severance payment of €53,000 before the redundancy process commenced. He submits that this demonstrates that the redundancy was unfair and predetermined. The Respondent states that the offer was made in an effort to be fair to the Complainant, in circumstances where it was clear that the business was moving away from Thermal Energy. The Complainant did not accept the offer and raised a number of issues through his solicitor before rejecting it. The redundancy consultation process commenced within a few weeks of that offer.

The Respondent’s position is that the Complainant’s dismissal arose because the business ceased to operate in that area, which was the Complainant’s area of specialism.  I am satisfied, based on the evidence adduced, that the Respondent did cease to carry on business in the area of Thermal Energy.

While the Complainant also disputes that Thermal Energy was his area of specialism, I note that the Respondent made efforts to ascertain what other roles or areas he might be suited to. The evidence before me is that the Respondent encountered resistance from the Complainant when seeking details of the roles, he considered himself suitable for or the skillsets he possessed. I also note that Ms. HF encountered similar difficulties during the appeal process.

I accept the Respondent’s explanation that the earlier exit offer was made in circumstances where the business was moving in a different direction. I do not accept the Complainant’s assertion that the offer demonstrates that the redundancy process was predetermined or unfair. I also note that there remained the possibility of alternative roles for the Complainant.

Following the rejection of the voluntary exit offer, the Complainant was formally placed “at risk”, consulted, and afforded three consultation meetings. Alternative roles were explored, and the Complainant applied for several roles but was unsuccessful. He was also given an opportunity to appeal the redundancy decision, following which the decision was upheld.

Conclusion

In arriving at my conclusion, I am mindful of the decision in O’Rourke v Valcroft Limited (UD1718/2012; 2015), in which the EAT criticised procedural failings in a redundancy process but found that those flaws did not undermine the genuineness of the redundancy or the fairness of the dismissal.

While I note that the process followed in this case may not have been perfect, I am satisfied that, considered in its totality, it does not amount to an unfair dismissal. In reaching this conclusion, I am mindful of the principle set out in Ahearne v Acorn Brokerage (ADJ-00030821; 2022), where the Adjudication Officer, quoting Redmond on Dismissal Law, observed that the WRC should adopt a balanced assessment of the overall interactions between the parties surrounding the redundancy process. In Redmond on Dismissal Law (Third Edition) at Page 395 Section 17.25 the learned author Mr. Des Ryan argues that

“The WRC should adopt a balanced assessment of the overall interactions between the Parties surrounding the Redundancy process. Thus, even where the employer can be criticised for some elements of its interactions with the individual whose role is ultimately made redundant, the redundancy when looked at in its totality may not necessarily amount to an unfair dismissal”

Accordingly, even where an employer may be criticised for some elements of its interaction with an employee whose role is ultimately made redundant, the redundancy, viewed in its totality, will not necessarily amount to an unfair dismissal. Applying that principle here, I am satisfied having considered all the written and oral evidence provided in relation to this complaint, that the complainant was not unfairly dismissed.   Accordingly, I declare this claim to be not well founded.

 I am satisfied having considered all the written and oral evidence provided in relation to this complaint, that the complainant was not unfairly dismissed.  Accordingly, I declare this claim to be not well founded

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00068964-001

31/01/2025

The complainant submitted that the respondent has breached the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994.

The complainant in this regard submits that this breach took place due to the reference to his title in his letter for confirmation of redundancy dated 23rd of September 2024 which stated that his role title was "Project Management Engineering Professional Specialist (specialism being thermal)"

The complainant in his submissions disputes that this was his formal role stating that it defines a part of what he does and his specialism.   The complainant submitted that he requested a revised Confirmation of Redundancy Letter with his correct role title.  The complainant submits that this is a breach of his employment contract as his role and title were changed.

In considering this matter I am satisfied that no evidence was adduced at the hearing to substantiate a claim that the respondent breached the Terms of Employment Information Act in relation to this matter and accordingly I declare this claim to be not well founded.

I declare this claim to be not well founded