UDD2629

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No.: ADJ-00050911 (CA-00062229-005).

BACKGROUND:

The Employer appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court on 22 January 2025 in accordance with Section 8A of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 to 2015.

A Labour Court hearing took place on 10 June 2026.

The following is the Decision of the Court:

Page 1

DECISION:

This matter before the Court is an appeal by Securitas Security Services (Ireland) Limited (hereafter referred to as “the Respondent”) of a decision of an Adjudication Officer in a complaint made by a former employee, Aisling Walsh (hereafter referred to as “the Complainant”)’ under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2015.

The Adjudication Officer held that the dismissal was not fair and made an award of €27,500. 

1. Background

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent company on 10 October 2022. She was engaged as a People and Communications Partner on a client site.  The role was specific to that client site. The Complainant earned a gross annual wage of €55,000.

The Complainant commenced maternity leave on 16 January 2023. She was due to return to work on 1 November 2023 following an extended leave period.

The Complainant was dismissed from her role, by reason of redundancy effective from 24 February 2024.  The Complainant submits that she was unfairly dismissed from her employment on her return from a period of protected leave.  The Respondent refutes that assertion.

2. Summary of the Respondent’s case:

The Respondent denies that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed. The Complainant’s contract of employment provided that ‘’this position is specific to the [the Client of the Respondent] contract only and subject to continuous client approval’’. The Complainant was dismissed because the role on the client site was redundant. Her role was made redundant with effect from 15 September 2023. The employee who was engaged to cover her maternity leave ceased working at that time, notwithstanding that the Complainant had yet to return from her maternity leave. A genuine redundancy situation existed. The Respondent made genuine efforts to find a suitable alternative role for the Complainant and engaged meaningfully and reasonably with her before reaching the decision to dismiss.

There is no statutory obligation on an employer to consult with an employee in an individual redundancy situation. Notwithstanding that fact, the Respondent engaged in consultation with the Complainant for an extended period of more than 10 weeks on her return from maternity leave trying to preserve her employment by offering her roles that were available, both internally and with other clients. The Complainant was not interested in roles available directly with the Respondent company or with other clients, as they did not provide the same terms and conditions of employment as the redundant PCP role. The dismissal was fair and the Respondent acted fairly and reasonably in the circumstances of this case. The process undertaken by the Respondent was always transparent and procedurally fair and was solely because of client requirements.

The Respondent referred to the following authorities in support of its position :- Allen Clarke v International Airport Hotel Ltd, T/A Clarion Airport Hotel – UD 454/2013; Elia Erian Aziz v The Midland Health Board [1995] E.L.R. 48; Loftus and Healy -v- An Bord Telecom (13 February 1987, unreported, HC); Pacelli -v- Irish Distillers (UD 57I / 2001); Looney & Co. Ltd. v Looney UD843/1984; Barry v Precision Software Ltd. (UD 624/2005) [2006] 10 JIEC 1801 and Allied Irish Banks Plc v Brian Purcell [2012] 23 E.L.R. 189.

3. Summary of the Complainant’s Case

The Complainant was employed as a People and Communications Partner. The terms and conditions proposed by the Respondent following her return from a period of protected leave differed from those that she was employed on prior to the expiry of her period of protective leave.

Page 2

The Complainant was informed that there was no need for her to return to work in November 2023. By email on 20 October 2023, the Respondent requested the Complainant’s resignation. By letter dated 6 November 2023, the Respondent advised the Complainant that her position was at risk of redundancy. During a meeting in November 2023, a manager queried whether a redundancy situation existed. The alternative roles proposed during the consultation process were as follows:

1. HR Screening Assistant (permanent) €35k
2. Recruitment Co-Ordinator (9-month contract) - €42k
3. People Engagement and Culture Ambassador (CIPD Qualification required) – 42k
4. Employee Relations Administrator (CIPD Qualification required) – 45k
5. HR Administrator (permanent) - €40k

The roles were only available through open competition. The salaries were substantially lower than the role she was employed on prior to her absence on protected leave. On 29 December 2023, the Complainant was informed that the consultation process was at an end.

At a meeting on 4 January 2024, the Respondent suggested two further roles that were available by open competition. The salaries were lower. The Complainant was happy to take a position on the same terms and conditions of employment that she had prior to her protected leave.

By letter dated 24 January 2024, the Respondent informed the Complainant of the termination of her employment. She appealed that decision. An appeal hearing was conducted on 13 January 2024. The Complainant was unfairly dismissed as she was prevented from resuming her employment following the expiry of her maternity leave.

1. Witness Evidence

The Court heard evidence from the Complainant and from the Ms Michelle Collins, HR Director, on behalf of the Respondent company.

2. Evidence of Michelle Collins, HR Director

When Ms Collins learned that the client was conducting headcount reductions and had decided to remove the People and Communications Partner (PCP) role, she contacted the Complainant in advance of her scheduled return to work in November 2023 to advise her of the situation. As a mother she was aware of the difficulties in securing childcare and need to pay deposits to secure crèche places. At a meeting on 16 October 2023, Ms Collins informed the Complainant that the client had cancelled the PCP role and told her that as the role no longer existed, there was no point in attending work at the client site and they would discuss the matter further on her return to work.

Ms Collins emailed two job descriptions to the Complainant on 19 October 2023. Both roles were at a lower salary. The Complainant replied to say that she could not accept either role, as they were not suitable. On the same day, the Complainant requested a reference and queried her entitlement to annual leave pay, which Ms Collins interpreted as an indication that the Complainant was resigning. When she sought clarification on that matter, the Complainant confirmed that she was not resigning.

Following the Complainant’s return to work on 1 November 2023, Ms Collins formally notified her that the PCP role had ceased and that she was at risk of redundancy. Rather than placing her on lay-off, she placed her on “Garden Leave”. The only other alternative was to place the Complainant on unpaid layoff, as there was no role for her at that time. Her absence was classified as “Garden Leave” to facilitate ongoing salary payments.

A consultation period commenced on 6 November 2023. The company went to extraordinary lengths to secure an alternative role for the Complainant. A 30-day consultation period, which was not a statutory requirement, was extended. The Complainant declined three roles because they were at a lower salary. The Complainant repeatedly said that she would only consider alternative positions if they matched her salary for the PCP role. That role was

Page 3

specific to the client site, and the salary was set by the client. The PCP role no longer existed.

Only eight or nine employees worked in the HR Department at that time. The Complainant was offered and declined three alternative roles within the HR Department, as they all had lower salaries. Ms Collins was prepared to waive qualification criteria required for two other roles advertised through open competition. They were declined.  A Senior HR Business Partner available at another client site was at a more senior level and required a degree level HR qualification. The Complainant did not pursue the possibility of this role and did not apply for it. The Complainant was not employed in a services role, such as security guards, who have mobility clauses and can be redeployed. The company continued to engage with the Complainant through meetings, emails and discussions about potential roles. Ultimately, the was no alternative role available, which was a pity was the company had no issues with the Complainant, as an employee.

1. The Complainant’s evidence: -

The Complainant’s role at the client site was made redundant. Her expectation was that the Company would provide her with an alternative role on the same terms and conditions of employment, as she was returning to work from a period of protective leave. She believed that she was entitled to return to work from protective leave on the same terms and conditions of employment. Alarm bells started to ring after she met with Ms Collins who asked for her resignation.  Her line manager on the client site said that he did not know that it was a redundancy situation.

The only roles that were offered to her during the consultation process were HR administration roles, which were more junior positions with lower salaries. Her PCP role at the client site was all about people and communications. She did not want a HR administration role which would be a step back in terms of career progression. A HR Business Partner role at another client site was not offered to her. That role required a degree and a HR qualification. She received no encouragement to apply for the role and did not pursue it. She had a degree, with an element of HR. She did not apply for any of the roles advertised through open competition.

Under cross examination, the Complainant accepted that she queried payment for her outstanding leave entitlement in an email to Ms Collins in October 2023. She was aware that payment for annual leave can only be triggered in a termination situation, when an employee leaves an employment. The Complainant accepted that she was given the opportunity to appeal the decision to terminate her employment. She accepted that she did not raise any issue that roles were to be selected via a competition process. She did not raise any issue with being placed on “Garden Leave” during the consultation period as part of that appeal process.

2. The Relevant Law

Section 6 of the Unfair Dismissals Act in relevant part provides:

6.— (1) 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.

(3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, if an employee was dismissed due to redundancy but the circumstances constituting the redundancy applied equally to one or more other employees in similar employment with the same employer who have not been dismissed, and either—

(a) the selection of that employee for dismissal resulted wholly or mainly from one or more of the matters specified in subsection (2) of this section or another matter that would not be a ground justifying dismissal, or

(b) he was selected for dismissal in contravention of a procedure (being a procedure that has been agreed upon by or on behalf of the employer and by the employee or a trade union, or an excepted body under the Trade Union Acts, 1941 and 1971, representing him or has been established by the custom and practice of the employment concerned) relating to redundancy and there were no special

Page 4

reasons justifying a departure from that procedure, then the dismissal shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to be an unfair dismissal.

(4) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, 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:

(c) the redundancy of the employee,

(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) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, 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 —

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

(b) to the extent (if any) of the compliance or failure to comply by the employer, in relation to the employee, with the procedure referred to in section 14 (1) of this Act or with the provisions of any code of practice referred to in paragraph (d) (inserted by the Unfair Dismissals (Amendment) Act, 1993) of section 7 (2) of this Act.

Section 7(2) of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 as amended provides:

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), 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, or

(c) the fact that his employer has decided to carry on the business with fewer or no employees, whether by requiring the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) to be done by other employees or otherwise, or

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

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

1. Deliberations

Where an employee is dismissed by reason of redundancy, the employer bears the burden of establishing that a genuine redundancy existed within the meaning of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 and that the processes followed in terminating the Complainant’s employment were fair and reasonable.

Did a genuine redundancy situation exist?

Page 5

The Respondent submits that the Complainant’s employment was terminated due to the redundancy of the People and Communications Partner role at a client site. The Court heard undisputed evidence that the role was unique to that specific client site. As part of the service contract, the client requested that a designated person be embedded on site to liaise with the other contract employees employed by the Respondent on that site. The client subsequently made a business decision to terminate that role, due to budget constraints.

Having regard to the evidence tendered, the Court is satisfied that the role of People and Communications Partner undertaken by the Complainant ceased to exist when the client terminated the role and that, as a result, a genuine redundancy situation arose, as provided at section 7(2)(b) of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967.

The Court is further satisfied that, having regard to the unique nature of the role, it was reasonable to confine the selection for redundancy to the Complainant’s role.

Was the Complainant offered suitable alternative work?

The Respondent engaged with the Complainant in relation to five alternative roles.  Three of the roles were available immediately - a HR Screening Assistant role at €35,000, a Recruitment Co-Ordinator role at €42,000 and a HR Administrator role at €40,000. The Complainant declined these roles, as she did not consider they were suitable relative to her experience and the accompanying salary was too low.

The Respondent proposed two other roles to the Complainant which were available through open competition – a People Engagement and Culture Ambassador at €42,000 and an Employee Relations Administrator at €45,000. Both positions required a CIPD qualification. Ms Collins gave evidence that the company was willing to waive the qualification requirements if the Complainant wanted either role. The Complainant declined to consider those roles as she said that the salary was too low. Those two roles were advertised through an open competition.

In the Court’s view, it was perfectly within the Complainant right to decline the positions proposed, given their lower salary levels. The Complainants wish to secure a role at the same level of seniority and with the same terms and conditions of employment were reasonable aspirations given her investment in developing her career development up to that point. However, Ms Collins gave clear and cogent evidence to explain why the salary levels for the alternate roles proposed were lower than the Complainant’s expectations. The Court accepts Ms Collins explanation that the Complainant’s salary of €55,000 was considerable higher than comparable roles within the Respondent company, as the role was specific to that client site and the salary for the role was set by the client. Ms Collins said that eight or nine people were employed in the HR department at that time and comparable roles were set at a lower rate of pay. The Court accepted Ms Collins evidence that a Senior HR Business Partner available at another client site was unsuitable as it was at a more senior level and was not pursued by the Complainant.

Ultimately as no suitable alternative role was available, the Respondent informed the Complainant of its decision to terminate her employment by letter, dated 15 January 2024.

Was the process followed by the employer reasonable?

In determining if a dismissal is unfair the Court may have regard to the reasonableness of the employer actions throughout the process. The question for the Court is whether the process followed by the Respondent was such that it rendered the termination of the Complainant’s employment unfair.

The Complainant contends that the decision to terminate the Complainant’s employment was predetermined. The Respondent rejects that assertion and contends that it addressed many of the issues raised by the Complainant as part of the appeal process.

The Complainant gave evidence that she was told by Ms Collins that there was no point in returning to work on the 1 November 2024. The Court preferred the evidence of Ms Collins on that matter who said that she told the

Page 6

Complainant that there was no point in returning to work at the client site, as the role was gone, and that they would engage further on alternative options. 

The Complainant’s contends that Ms Collins requested her resignation in October 2023. Having reviewed the correspondence exchanged with the Complainant; the Court concludes that it was not unreasonable for Ms Collins to interpret a request for information about a job reference and payment for outstanding leave as an indication that the Complainant wished to leave her employment at that point. By reply, the Complainant confirmed that she was not resigning.

The Complainant’s evidence was that she was told by another manager that the termination of her employment was not a redundancy situation. The Respondent’s position is that the Complainant was informed that she was not entitled to a statutory redundancy payment due to her short length of service. While the Complainant’s testimony was undisputed, as the Court did not hear evidence from the relevant manager to dispute her evidence, nothing much turns on that point. Neither party disputed that a redundancy situation arose.

On 6 November 2023, the Complainant received a letter confirming that her position was at risk of redundancy. The letter stated that “the company will be required to put you on garden leave, which means the following: The company reserves the right to put an employee on Garden Leave during their notice period and this will also require you to return all Securitas Equipment during this leave. Garden Leave refers to a situation where an employee is required to serve out a period of notice at home”.

The Complainant contends that by placing her on “Garden Leave” the Respondent was not genuine about engaging in a consultation process about alternatives to redundancy and instead made a predetermined decision about her employment status. The Respondent rejects that assertion and contends that the fact that the Complainant was placed on “Garden Leave” does not equate to the termination of her employment, nor does it indicate any predetermination on its part. Ms Collins gave evidence that, as there was no role for the Complainant to return to at that time, the only options available under company policies were to place the Complainant on paid “Garden Leave”, or alternatively on unpaid layoff. The Court had some difficulties with Ms Collins evidence regarding the necessity to classify the Complainant as on “Garden Leave”. Notwithstanding that fact, the Court is satisfied from the evidence tendered that the Respondent’s actions were made good faith to facilitate the Complainant with full pay during the consultation period, as an alternative to laying her off at that time.

The Court notes that there was an extended consultation period, during which the Complainant remained on full pay. There was ongoing engagement with the Complainant during that period. The Complainant declined positions proposed to her as she did not deem them to be suitable alternative roles, which she was perfectly entitled to do.

The Complainant availed of the option to appeal the decision to terminate her employment. The appeal was rejected. The Court notes that no issues were raised by the Complainant during the appeal process about her status on “Garden Leave” during the consultation process.

It is well established in law that an employer cannot dismiss an employee while on maternity leave. That did not happen in this case. The Complainant remained in the employment of the Respondent at the end of her period of protective leave on 1 November 2023. She engaged in a consultation process to explore what alternative options to redundancy were available to her. Ultimately, her employment was terminated by reason of redundancy with effect from 28 February 2024.

The Complainant may take issue with aspects of the consultation process undertaken by the Respondent however, in the Court’s view having regard to the evidence before it any shortcomings in the process do not amount to failings such that it deems the termination of the Complainant’s by reason of redundancy employment to be unfair. 

Having regard to all of the circumstances of this case, the Court is of the view that the matters identified by the Complainant did not render the dismissal to be unfair. 

Page 7

The Court is satisfied that the termination of the Complainant’s employment was unconnected to her pregnancy and absence from work on statutory protective leave. In the view of the Court, the Court is satisfied that a genuine redundancy situation arose and, given the unique nature of the role, that the Complainant was fairly selected for redundancy. Having considered all of the circumstances of this case, the Court is of the view that the conduct of the Respondent in relation to the implementation of the redundancy was substantially reasonable, and any shortcomings that arose during the consultation process did not amount to behaviour on the part of the Respondent, such that it can be deemed the termination of the Complainant’s by reason of redundancy to be unfair.

1. Finding:

For the reasons outlined above, the Court finds that the Complainant’s dismissal by reason of redundancy was not unfair.

The decision of the Adjudication Officer is set aside.

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Katie Connolly
AL	______________________
11/08/2026	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ms Amy Leonard, Court Secretary.

Page 8