Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Tania Elena  Zorrilla Preciado

Concentrix Srev Europe Limited

Representatives

 Self-represented

 Éinde O’Donnell Solicitor and Keara McGinley Solicitor, Browne Jacobson LLP Solicitors

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00067728-001

27/11/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00067728-002

27/11/2024

The Complainant initially made two claims: a claim pursuant to the Employment Equality Act 1998 (as amended) and the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 (as amended).

At the commencement of the hearing the Complainant confirmed that her claim was for unfair dismissal but that she also wished to highlight an equality issue which arose from her dismissal. The provisions of Section 101 subsection 4 (a) were discussed with the Complainant who was given some time to consider the provision. Having done so the Complainant confirmed that she was withdrawing the Equality claim and wished to proceed with the Unfair Dismissal claim albeit that she wished to raise an equality issue in relation to the latter insofar as she alleged that age discrimination was a factor in her dismissal. Subject to that clarification the matter proceeded as a claim for Unfair Dismissal pursuant to the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 (as amended). 

The Respondent’s registered offices are located at Floor 3, Block 3, Miesian Plaza, Dublin 2. D02 Y754.

The Respondent is a multinational corporation engaged in business process outsourcing. The Complainant was employed by the Respondent in the role of Partner Specialist from 23 May 2022 until 10 June 2024, when her employment was terminated.

[NOTE:

Only those who gave evidence are identified. The identity of the Respondent’s clients and the description of the accounts which those clients held with the Respondent are referred to with unrelated lettering: Account X, Y, Z and W. The Complainant initially worked on Account X under the supervision of supervisor L. When that account was lost, the Complainant was redeployed to Account Y in late 2023 and she then came under the supervision of supervisor M.  Other accounts mentioned in the submission and in the discussion which follows are named, Accounts Z and W. The Complainant applied for a position in Account Z. Two other specific job applications made by the Complainant were in respect of vacancies for clients described respectively as “Retailer” and “Bank”. Certain segments of the submission are redacted (where indicated) due to references to hearsay evidence which was excluded.]

The Complainant represented herself and gave evidence on oath. The Complainant made a number of written submissions. The key issues raised by the Complainant were as follows:

The dismissal did not follow the principles of fair procedure and natural justice, as required under Section 6(7) of the Act. Specifically:

• The selection process lacked transparency, objectivity, and consistency.

• Alternative roles were available but not fairly communicated or offered.

• I was excluded from internal redeployment while younger colleagues were supported and reassigned.

• The consultation and appeal processes were procedurally flawed, with key documentation ignored, misrepresented, or withheld.

In addition to the procedural flaws outlined above, I respectfully submit that the treatment I received reflects a broader pattern of exclusion and potential age-based discrimination. The following points describe specific incidents which, when viewed together, suggest that the redundancy was not purely operational in nature but may have been influenced by subjective and discriminatory factors. These incidents are presented chronologically to show the progression of events and their cumulative impact.

1. Initial Warning Signs: Unexpected Transfer and Hostility

At the delayed Christmas party in January 2024, I thanked the senior sales manager M, for what I believed was his decision to transfer me to Account Y. He corrected me, stating that the decision came from my former manager, L — a manager who had previously shown clear hostility toward me

This revelation suggested that I may have been strategically moved out of a more prominent role or account — not due to performance concerns, but potentially to place me in an account with limited longevity or low renewal prospects. The decision appeared less about operational needs and more about sidelining my position within the company.

1. Discomfort Brushed Aside

When I raised this concern with my new manager in Account Y, he dismissed it by saying, ‘the most important thing is that you're now in a solid logo.’ This response minimised my concern and made it clear that the underlying issue would not be acknowledged or investigated.

1. Pattern of Exclusion

After the March 5 ramp-down announcement, I experienced growing exclusion from team activities — including being left out of birthday card signings and team meetings. These seemingly minor exclusions contributed to a sense of isolation and marginalisation, which are often symptoms of a discriminatory workplace culture.

1. Signs of Pretext and Token Gestures

Even before being formally notified of my redundancy risk, I was sent an invitation to a company-wide webinar on job-seeking skills (‘The Art of Interview’). The session covered CV preparation and interview techniques.

Upon querying the reason for receiving the email — particularly considering prior assurances that my position was secure — I was advised that it had been circulated to the wider team. My concern, however, lay not in the distribution list but in the message itself. The subject matter, which centred on CV development and interview techniques, appeared inconsistent with claims of continued job security. This contradiction suggested that decisions regarding redundancies may have already been made, with the email serving as a preparatory measure disguised as a general resource.

1. Lack of Genuine Internal Support

During the consultation period, I sought guidance from both my manager and senior sales manager but received no active support in identifying internal opportunities. Instead, I was met with vague reassurances, while other colleagues were privately approached and encouraged to apply for roles I was never made aware of.

In particular, I can demonstrate that other roles were available.  [REDACTED – Reference to Hearsay]

Although employees are typically encouraged to raise concerns with Human Resources, this was neither practical nor safe in my case. There was no clear guidance on whether I fell under the Irish or UK HR structure, and I had no assigned contact, making escalation unclear. Moreover, based on my observations and those of colleagues, raising sensitive issues with HR carried a reputational risk. Those who did were often marginalised or labelled as problematic. In that climate, I chose to raise concerns through line management and the formal consultation process instead.

5a. Cost-Based Concerns: Transfer from Account A and Role Advertised Abroad

In addition to the lack of internal support, I believe the cost associated with my previous assignment on Account X played a role in my redundancy. That role carried a higher compensation level than was standard within the Account Y structure. I suspect this perceived cost imbalance contributed to the decision to make me redundant.

This concern is reinforced by the fact that my position — Partner Specialist with Spanish Language, remote — was later advertised in Sofia, Bulgaria, a significantly lower-cost region. A screenshot of the posting is included. This suggests that my role was not eliminated in substance but rather relocated abroad at lower cost, raising further doubts about the genuineness of the redundancy and the fairness of the selection process.

1. Lack of Proper Representation and Due Process

While I was technically allowed to bring representation to redundancy meetings, this was limited to a union representative or colleague. As a non-union member, this effectively denied me meaningful representation.  The minutes of my first consultation meeting (29 April 2024) were inaccurate, and my written addendum correcting the record was ignored. Additionally, I only saw the appeal meeting minutes when they were submitted as part of the Respondent’s defence — further evidence of a lack of procedural fairness.

1. Broader Context: Age and the Tech Sector

In the tech industry, there is often a preference for younger employees, who are seen as more flexible or a better fit for company culture. As an older, more experienced worker, I began to feel pushed aside — I was moved from a key account, left out of important updates, and quietly made to feel like I should start preparing to leave. While no one said this directly, these actions match common patterns of age discrimination reported in the industry.

Conclusion

Taken individually, each of these issues might appear minor or explainable. But viewed collectively, they reveal a clear pattern of exclusion, procedural failure, and disingenuous communication that cannot be separated from my age and profile. This was not just a business-driven redundancy — it was a process shaped by subjective judgements and implicit bias.

I respectfully submit that the Respondent must be put to full proof — not only of the fairness of the redundancy process but also of the absence of discriminatory motives. To date, no clear, objective, and non-discriminatory rationale has been provided for the treatment I received, particularly when contrasted with the support and outcomes afforded to other employees.

Opening Statement

This statement outlines a sustained pattern of managerial bias, exclusion, and inconsistency that I experienced during my time at Concentrix — beginning with my transfer to the Account X Spain account in late 2022 and continuing through my reassignment to the Account Y team in 2023. I believe the evidence demonstrates that my redundancy was not handled fairly or transparently, and that I was repeatedly overlooked for internal roles despite meeting performance expectations and earning relevant certifications.

From the outset, I faced exclusion, passive-aggressive treatment, and inappropriate comments about my learning pace and mental capacity — remarks that, while subtle, carried an unmistakable undertone of age-related bias. What makes this situation especially concerning is that the mistreatment was not limited to a single manager. Rather, it persisted across different teams and accounts, with later managers maintaining a polite outward attitude while taking actions behind the scenes that undermined my career prospects. The underlying issue — a perception that I was ‘outdated’ or not worth investing in — seemed to follow me from one role to the next.

Throughout this time, I remained committed to my work, completed certification exams, and tried to stay professional — even when colleagues confided in me about open roles that I had not been informed about myself. I did not file a formal complaint internally, because I had already seen that raising concerns often led to inaction or subtle forms of retaliation. HR's lack of engagement only reinforced this perception: even basic administrative matters, such as repeated email requests for my payslips, went unanswered. As such, although I did not officially escalate my concerns at the time, I now submit this statement as my formal declaration of the discrimination and age bias I endured.

This case is not just about policies or paperwork. It is about how people are treated when they are no longer seen as strategically valuable, or when they fall outside of the inner circle. I bring this statement forward not just to challenge the circumstances of my own redundancy, but to highlight a wider pattern of unequal treatment that deserves scrutiny.

Timeline of events

October 2022 – Transition to Account X Spain Account

•                     I was reassigned from my onboarding manager, L the Account Manager for Spain.

•                     From the outset, L expressed discomfort with the fact that I was based in Ireland, while the rest of the Spanish team operated from Bulgaria.

•                     His behaviour was cold, dismissive, and at times passive aggressive. I suspect this stemmed in part from resentment over cross-country salary differences.

•                     Additionally, I believe his hostility was fuelled by professional rivalry with K, who had recruited and supported me.

•                     This lack of respect escalated quickly. L made comments alluding to my age and mental capacity, casting doubt on my ability to learn and adapt. This tone laid the groundwork for ongoing mistreatment.

Late 2022 – Early 2023: Escalating Hostility

L's behaviour evolved into open hostility and professional sabotage: He used his influence over certain sales representatives to place unreasonable demands on me.  When asking for help I got comments like, or ‘you have already had your onboarding, find it yourself’ even though I was still in my learning phase.  When I pushed back or sought clarification, a sales rep would escalate the issue by copying L on emails, who would then intervene on their behalf. In meetings, I was frequently interrupted, undermined, shouted at, or dismissed — behaviour that was directed exclusively at me.

The environment became toxic: I felt micromanaged, excluded, and under constant pressure to prove myself.

24 January 2023 – Emotional Breakdown in a Team Meeting

•                     In a tense meeting, I asked why a colleague sales representative was allowed to treat me in an aggressive, and disrespectful manner.

•                     L said nothing — his silence felt like tacit approval.

•                     The technical support for Spain, supported me and confirmed that the sales representative had also treated her inappropriately.

•                     The ongoing stress and lack of managerial support became overwhelming, and I broke down emotionally during the meeting

•                     Team meetings only became proper and respectful after I began recording them openly.

April 2023 – Pressured to Monitor a Colleague

•                     Following a conflict between a sales representative and a Technical Support employee. the latter filed a formal HR complaint alleging bullying.

•                     Soon after, L called me into a private meeting and implied that I should ‘find out more’ about [name] due to our friendship.

•                     I refused, citing my ongoing certification exams, my sister’s illness, and the ethical concerns of spying on the only colleague who had defended me.

•                     L responded with a veiled threat, reminding me he controlled quarterly bonuses and advised me to ‘keep that in mind’.

•                     Despite efforts to remain professional, he continued shouting at me in meetings — including in front of external partner.

Mid–2023 – Age-Related Insults and Dismissed Concerns

•                     I was assigned to investigate a suspiciously large order that appeared to artificially inflate team performance. Upon contacting the clients—who were unaware of the order—I was reprimanded by L who stated that I should never reach out to clients directly and referred to me as a ‘slow learner.’ I was told I should only communicate with partners and distributors. Despite explaining the need to understand the issue from all sides, my reasoning was dismissed. Ultimately, it was confirmed that the error originated on our side.

Around this time, a colleague close to L informed us (via Teams) that a product I had spent weeks studying had been decommissioned. I expressed concern that such updates should come from management, given the effort I had invested. The colleague responded with a derogatory remark about my age and mental capacity, which he immediately deleted.

When I reported this to L he dismissed it, saying the colleague ‘did not say anything untrue,’ and cited my struggles with certification exams as justification. This was deeply humiliating and confirmed that age-based bias was not only tolerated but potentially encouraged. L favoured him, he was the only one allowed not to show his face on the team meetings, while we were required to appear in camera.

Throughout 2023 – Culture of Fear and Retaliation

•                     Account X manager consistently undermined my efforts, withheld key information, and isolated me. I often had to rely on another UK-based manager for updates and catch ups.

•                     I felt I had to self-censor everything — even my reactions on Teams — for fear of retaliation.

•                     Having fought hard for this role after COVID, while caring for my ill sister, I could not afford to lose it. But the emotional toll was immense.

October 2023 – Team Dissolution and Bonus Disparity

•                     We were informed that Account X would not be renewed. Although verbal reassurances were given, nothing was provided in writing, which contributed to heightened anxiety among the team. The 64 team members were given verbal assurances of relocation, as had been standard practice in similar past situations.

In October, I received only 53% of my bonus (see Appendix 8), while others received 90–100%. I raised the issue with HR. A €612 top-up was approved while L was on leave.  When I later asked L about the decision, he responded bluntly: ‘You shouldn’t be surprised — I decide.’ For context, when a region does not meet its target—as was the case with Spain—it is left to the manager’s discretion to determine how much each team member receives from the quarterly bonus allocation.

Mid–November 2023 – Reassignment to Account Y

•                     I was reassigned to Account Y and passed my exam on the first attempt.

•                     During the handover, my Account Y manager, M., shared that L had referred to me as a ‘flipper’ and ‘outdated.’

•                     While M remained professional, the comment confirmed that prejudicial labelling had followed me into this new role.

•                     Around this time, I met P (made redundant too), a former member of the Account X Norway team. She confided [Redacted – Hearsay]

Jan–March 2024 – Account Y Onboarding and Signs of Exclusion

•                     Onboarding and team meetings initially felt respectful and inclusive.

•                     At the Concentrix Christmas party (late January’24), I thanked senior sales manager for assigning me to Account Y. He replied, ‘That wasn’t my decision — L made that call,’ contradicting what L had told me. Therefore, it appears I may have been placed on an account that was not expected to succeed, possibly as a strategic decision.

•                     I began to suspect the reassignment to a winding-down account may have been intentional.

•                     My manager M reassured me, saying, ‘You have nothing to worry about, you’re with us now.’

•                     However, subtle signs of exclusion appeared: LA (who joined Account Y around the same time as I did) and I were excluded from birthday card signings and were sometimes left out of meeting invitations. During meetings, we often noticed when one of us was missing — for example, I would ask about LA, only to find out she hadn’t been invited in the first place, and vice versa.

•                     My manager, M, got married in February. While I didn’t expect an invitation since I had only recently joined, I later learned that all other team members were invited — except for LA and I. Coincidentally or not, almost everyone who attended the wedding was eventually redeployed to accounts.

•                     On March 5, we were informed (only verbally) that Account Y was ending:

•                     Group A (mine) would cease operations on the 4th April 2024 (Regions: Norway, Italy, Spain, Portugal, UK)

•                     Group B would continue until the end of July 2024 (Regions: France, Germany)

•                     On March 25, I discovered I had been excluded from internal redeployment communications — including roles in Account Z and other companies. When I reached out to Raj the senior sales manager, she seemed surprised I had not been informed, she organised an interview.

Late March–April 2024 – Redundancy Process

•                     25 March (same day): In a sick leave review with HR and M, I disclosed the prior harassment in Account A and its impact on my mental health.

•                     27 March: The Account Z Specs shared (Remote position).

•                     1 April: Completed Account Y onboarding; worked three days before operations ceased.

•                     2 April: Attended interview for inside sales role (Account Z).

•                     15 April: Took two days of PTO, I was encouraged not to cancel holidays as we were promised that we will have jobs.

•                     17 April: Learned another colleague had started in the Account Z role — no feedback was provided from my interview.

•                     24 April: Unexpected meeting: Two colleagues (Group A) J and P and I were told we were at risk of redundancy.

May–June 2024 – Redundancy and Final Outcome

•                     29 April: First redundancy meeting. Offered relocation options (Belfast or UK) with significant pay cuts — colleagues declined. I show interest.

•                     30 April: Received inaccurate meeting minutes.

•                     1 May: Applied for a Belfast-based Spanish Social Media Advisor role.

•                     3 May: Colleague A [REDACTED – Hearsay]

•                     6 May: A colleague advised me [REDACTED – Hearsay]

•                     7 May: Second Redundancy Meeting: Colleagues J and P were made redundant. During the meeting, I requested a review of the previous meeting’s minutes and disclosed past instances of harassment. Raj stated he was not aware of these issues. Although I was aware of available roles on Account W, no offers were shared with me. I chose to remain silent at the time.

•                     8 May: [An identified employee] was transferred from Group A to Group B on the grounds that ‘she was needed’. This decision caused confusion and frustration among colleagues, who openly questioned management’s reasoning.

I applied for three roles: Solution Specialist (Spanish), Inside Sales Rep (English), and Deal Desk Specialist (English).

•                     10–24 May: The weight of everything I knew, combined with ongoing worry, took a serious toll on my physical and mental health. My doctor subsequently issued a sick leave due to a stress-related illness.

•                     13 May: I missed the third redundancy meeting due to illness, which happened to be scheduled on the same day. Shortly after, M contacted me to inform me that I would only be paid for five sick days. I also missed five phone calls from the Liverpool office that day.

•                     23 May: I marked two years of service.

•                     27 May: Returned from leave; applied for two more roles: Product Manager Analyst and Product Marketing Lead.

•                     28 May: During an 'All Hands' meeting, the EMEA Director announced new job openings and relocation opportunities. None of these were offered to me. I recorded the meeting as evidence to probe that there were jobs.

•                     29 May: I had a back-to-work meeting with Snr. Sales Manager.

•                     10 June: Final HR meeting — I was officially made redundant.

•                     16 June: Submitted an appeal.

•                     28 June: Appeal hearing held remotely with Richard W. and SM. I did not receive the minutes of this meeting.

•                     8 July: Appeal rejected. Reason cited: language-based preselection — inconsistent with roles I had applied for.

•                     9 & 20 October: Emailed HR requesting access to my payslips without answer. I had access denied.

Concentrix’s largely paperless operational model creates a lack of traceability around verbal agreements, internal meetings, and procedural decisions. This absence of documentation became evident during the ramp-down of the two accounts. Processes were inconsistently followed, and exceptions appeared to be made without transparency or fairness.

Conclusion

Over the course of two years, I did everything in my power to contribute, adapt, and remain professional under immense pressure. I passed certification exams, supported my team, remained engaged, and even kept quiet when I saw roles being informally offered to others ahead of me. What I experienced was not just poor management—it was a systemic pattern of being sidelined, overlooked, and ultimately discarded, despite available roles and my willingness to continue.  The company may argue that my redundancy was a result of business need or role elimination, but the facts paint a different picture: other roles existed, some colleagues were internally redeployed, and decisions were made behind closed doors with no transparency. My treatment reflected a deeper culture of selective inclusion, and I believe I was judged not on performance, but on subjective, age-related perceptions, despite that never being said outright.  The impact on my mental health, professional confidence, and wellbeing has been significant. I am not seeking special treatment—only recognition that the process I went through was not objective, not consistent, and ultimately not fair.

The Respondent was represented by Mr. Éinde O’Donnell Ms Keara McGinley Solicitors of Browne Jacobson LLP Solicitors.  The Respondent provided a detailed written submission and called two witnesses, Ms. Raj Sidhu, Senior Sales Manager and Mr. Richard Warriner, Customer Success Director, both of whom gave evidence on affirmation.

The Respondent is a multinational corporation engaged in business process outsourcing. The Complainant was employed by the Respondent in the role of Partner Specialist from 23 May 2022 until 10 June 2024, when her employment was terminated due to her role becoming redundant.

The Complainant was assigned to a client account in December 2023, which comprised of 19 team members. In March 2024, the closure of this account was announced, resulting in the cessation of operations for that account and the consequent need for a re-structure within the Respondent’s business. This resulted in all employees who were assigned to the account being placed “at risk” of redundancy.

Three consultation meetings were conducted with the Complainant following which as no alternative redeployment options could be found the Complainant’s employment was terminated on grounds of redundancy by letter dated 10th of June 2024. Thereafter the Complainant was offered and availed of an appeal against that decision, the outcome of which as advised to the Complainant in a letter dated the 8th of July 2024 was the upholding of the decision to terminate the Complainant’s employment. 

The decision to make the Complainant’s role redundant was based on clear and objective business reasons only, and the inability to redeploy her in a different role was solely due to her not meeting the specific location or language requirements of any of the available alternative roles.

In the instant case, the Complainant (along with others) was made redundant while some of her colleagues were retained, as they met the language requirements for available alternative positions and were, therefore, eligible for redeployment. The Respondent complied with its obligation to consider and explore potential alternative roles. However, the Complainant did not possess the necessary language skills required for many of the available positions.  The Respondent’s requirement for employees with specific language skills was clearly explained to the Complainant, and the selection for redundancy was based on objective criteria. Accordingly, the selection of the Complainant for redundancy was fair and justified.

Section 6(7) of the UDA 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”. Whilst there is no set standard as towhat constitutes a reasonable conduct, same has been guided by case law through theyears. To that end, we note the following efforts made by the Respondent:

(a) Prior to finalising any decision, the Complainant was first placed at risk of redundancy to allow time for her to consider and make representations in regards to the Respondent’s proposal. In this regard, the Complainant was placed at risk of redundancy on 24 April 2024. Following this, the Respondent engaged in a very thorough consultation process with the Complainant during which, as outlined above, there were three consultation meetings and extensive correspondence. The Complainant was afforded every opportunity to make representations (which she did) and to put forward queries (which she did).

(b) The Complainant was notified at the outset of the process of the potential outcomes faced by her, in that her role could be made redundant and by consequence her employment terminated.

(c) The Respondent carried out a reasonable and proportionate search as to whether there were any alternative roles within the business for the Complainant to take up and, indeed, put such an alternative forward. From the outset of the process, the Respondent was fully transparent and provided details on all available roles with the wider group. The Respondent also engaged proactively with the Complainant in relation to potential alternatives to redundancy and allowed her a full opportunity to put forward any alternatives.

(d) The Complainant was afforded the right to representation at each stage of the process which she chose not to avail of.

(e) The Complainant was afforded the right of appeal, which was exercised and subsequently heard by Mr. Warriner and Mr. Munnoch. The appeal process which was undertaken was thorough in that the Complainant was afforded an opportunity to make representations both prior to and during the appeal hearing. The representations made by the Complainant were fully considered, and any point of appeal raised by the Complainant was addressed comprehensively in the appeal outcome letter

Applicable Statutory Provisions

The following provisions of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977-2015 (as amended) (“the UDA”) are of relevance:

Section 6 subsection (1) of the (“the UDA”) provides as follows:

“Subject to the provisions of this section, the dismissal of an employee shallbe deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to be an unfair dismissal unless, havingregard to all the circumstances, there were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal.”

Subsection 4 where relevant to the present case, provides as follows:

“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”

Subsection 2 provides as follows:

“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, to be an unfair dismissal if it results wholly or mainly from one or more of the following:…

…(ee) the age of the employee…”

Subsection 3 provides:

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

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

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

then the dismissal shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to be an unfair dismissal.”

Subsection 6 places the onus on the employer to establish that the dismissal was fair (the so-called reversed onus of proof) as follows:

“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.”

Subsection 7 provides where relevant, as follows:

“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…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…”

In the present case, dismissal was not in dispute nor was the date of dismissal. The dismissal is deemed unfair pursuant to Section 6 (1) unless the Respondent can show “substantial grounds” justifying the dismissal. In this case the Respondent relied on Section 6 (4) (c) -  that the Complainant was dismissed on the basis of redundancy.

Section 7 (2) of the Redundancy Payments Act 1969 (as amended) defines redundancy as occurring in any of the following situations:

“(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”

Relevant Evidence and Documentation

Ms. Raj Sidhu gave evidence for the Respondent on affirmation. She is the Respondent’s Senior Sales Manager.

The Respondent is in the business of assigning its employees to work exclusively on specific accounts in such a manner as to provide an outsourced sales and marketing service to its clients. The process whereby the Respondent’s employees are assigned to work on those accounts involves matching the employees’ locations, language and skillset to those of the client.

Where an account is lost, employees assigned to that account are at risk of redundancy since their work is generated by that account. In the present case the Complainant was originally working on Account X but when this account was lost to the Respondent the Complainant was re-assigned to work on Account Y in November 2023 and by such means the termination of her employment by reason of redundancy was avoided on that occasion, as she was redeployed to another account where her language, location and skill-set were a match for that client. The Complainant’s position when working on Account Y was that of Partner Specialist and she was assigned to provide services in accordance with this job description for the client holding Account Y. The Respondent’s work on that account involved the provision of services worldwide and thus the work was divided up into regions in accordance with the language spoken in those regions. Whilst the common business language spoken in the Respondent company is English, employees were assigned to specific regions in accordance with their native languages. The Complainant is a native Spanish speaker, but she also speaks fluent English. 

The Complainant was assigned to service the regions of Spain, Italy and Portugal. Spanish was spoken to Spanish customers, but English was spoken to the Italian and Portuguese customers. The work was primarily carried out online from home and the Complainant was based in Ireland. She was the only member of the team assigned to Account Y who serviced these regions. The other regions were Germany, the United Kingdom, France and the Nordic Countries. In the U.K., Germany and France regions the client preferred native speakers of those languages. The Nordic regions required a native speaker of one the Nordic languages and the person assigned to this region was a native Finnish speaker, but that person also spoke other Nordic languages. 

The Respondent’s evidence was that it was informed by the Client for Account Y that the account would be terminated in two phases. The impending closure of the account put the positions of a group of employees at risk of redundancy. Ms. Sidhu said that the group consisted of 19 employees in total although she subsequently accepted that the total number was in fact 20 employees. The closure of the account was to follow a timetable split int two phases. The first phase involved the closure of the “pipeline” (meaning the feed of work) by the end of March 2024 with the second pipeline scheduled to terminate in June 2024. This process split the employees at risk into two groups, A and B, depending on when the work to which they were assigned was due to finish up. The Complainant’s employment was identified as being at risk and her “pipeline” was to ed in March 2024 which placed her in Group A.

The Complainant’s employment having been identified as at risk, a consultation process was initiated by the Respondent which was led by Ms. Sidhu who, accompanied by a member of the HR Department had three meetings with the Complainant.

In the consultation meetings, which took place on the 29th of April 2024, the 7th of May 2004 and the 10th of June 2024, it was explained to the Complainant that every effort was being made to source an alternative role for her. The Complainant asked if there was a scoring system in relation to selecting positions for redundancy and Ms. Sidhu explained that the process had “nothing to do with capability…Nothing to do with scoring. It’s based on where you are, languages spoken, what clients will agree to”. When the Complainant pointed out that some team members had been reallocated it was explained that any reallocation or redeployment was “simply based on language spoken and area”. An example was given of a role requiring a German speaker where, as between two German speakers the one who was redeployed was able to get to the office in Sheffield in the UK where the other was not.  Ms. Sidhu said she was looking for a Spanish/English role for the Complainant which could be done in Dublin.

Ms. Sidhu provided a detailed breakdown of the selection process involving the positions (including that of the Complainant) which were affected by the closure of Account Y. Of the group affected: four employees who could not be redeployed were made redundant including the Complainant, three employees resigned, and the balance were redeployed to other projects.

The Complainant enquired as to whether the process of redeployment had changed given that candidates were now being interviewed for redeployment positions. The Complainant said that she knew of employees of the Respondent who had been redeployed six times. Ms. Sidhu said “The process hasn’t changed. If opportunities are available, we would have gone through the same process. The only thing that’s changed is what’s available, where it’s available, restrictions on accounts. The circumstances have changed, not the process”

In her evidence Ms. Sidhu explained that when the Respondent was searching for redeployment options for affected employees, the principal criteria were location and native language spoken but some of the Respondent’s clients also wanted to interview potential candidates. It was also the case that the Respondent’s contract terms with clients took precedence and where stipulations were made these had to be complied with. For this reason, a third criterion was the skill set/experience of the employee.

In the consultation meetings the Complainant enquired about two accounts where there were vacancies but one of these was not relevant to the Complainant at all and the other required speakers of German and Italian, so these were ruled out. The complainant did express interest in roles for a Retailer and a Bank. The Complainant explored these positions but neither suited her.

In the meetings the Complainant referred to a position on Account Z of which she had become aware. She asked why she had not been told about this position. In her evidence Ms. Sidhu explained that she understood that this position required native English speakers and a relocation to Liverpool and this was why it had not been mentioned to the Complainant. She pointed out that in any event the Complainant did in fact put herself forward for this position and was interviewed but was unsuccessful. Two employees were successfully redeployed to this role after being interviewed by the client’s hiring managers. Both were native English speakers who were based in the UK.

The Complainant made a specific reference in the consultation process to difficulties which she had encountered in the past with her supervisor when she worked on Account X. She was advised to initiate a formal complaint by means of a separate grievance process regarding this issue and she indicated that she would do so, but she did not.

Efforts continued to redeploy the Complainant throughout the consultation process but by the third meeting, no suitable opportunities had been found by the Respondent or by the Complainant herself.       In relation to a role identified by the Complainant which was advertised in October 2024, Ms. Sidhu was not aware of this role being available at the time when the Complainant was dismissed. Age was never a factor in any decision to dismiss the Complainant or any other employee. Every effort was made to find a suitable alternative to dismissal. 

On the 10th of June 2024, following the final consultation meeting, the Complainant received a letter from the Respondent advising as follows:

“After a period of consultation, in which we have explored ways in which to mitigate or avoid redundancy, unfortunately, and as confirmed verbally on 10th June 2024, you have been selected for redundancy. This decision was reached following an extensive but unsuccessful exercise to find a suitable redeployment opportunity for you.”

The letter was written by the HR officer who conducted the meetings with Ms. Sidhu. Such letters were customarily written by the HR officer involved, but Ms Sidhu said that the decision was made jointly by herself and the HR officer.

The Complainant was offered the opportunity to appeal this decision if she felt that she had been unfairly selected. The Complainant availed of this option. An appeal meeting took place on 28th of June 2024 which was conducted by Mr. Warriner who gave evidence on affirmation.

Mr. Warriner outlined the content of the appeal process. The outcome, which affirmed the decision to dismiss the Complainant, was communicated by Mr. Warriner to the Complainant in a letter dated the 8th of July 2024 which stated as follows:

“There were several points to your appeal, with your main concerns summarised as follows:

-        that you felt that promises were made about security of employment and that these promises did not come to fruition;

-       that the alternative roles you were offered were unrealistic and you were excluded from key communications, which you felt indicated possible pre-selection; and

-       that the process followed lacked inclusivity and transparency.

During the meeting, we discussed your appeal in detail and my findings are as follows:

In similar situations in previous years, we have had significant success in finding suitable redeployment opportunities for individuals working on accounts that have come to an end, and have subsequently been able to avoid and/or mitigate redundancy. However, unfortunately, this is not always possible. We approach these situations with cautious optimism, as our business relies heavily on our ability to recruit and retain top talent, and losing talent through redundancy is always a last resort.

If you feel that you were guaranteed continuity of employment through any of our communications, this is regrettable, as I believe that any such communication would have been made in good faith of a possible positive outcome for those affected, but without a guarantee; simply because we would have been unable to guarantee securing you, or anyone else affected by the situation, another role.

I have not seen any evidence to suggest any failings in the process. I can see that the business did make you aware of alternative roles; albeit, I acknowledge that the majority of the shared vacancies would have required significant change (potentially in base location and terms and conditions). However, the business cannot create roles for individuals impacted by potential redundancy and the roles shared with you were those that were available at the time.

If you feel you were excluded from certain communications, this is regrettable. As you mentioned in the meeting, you were not included on an email sent by Anthony Meadows, in which details of a role had been shared with affected employees. However, as we established in the meeting, details were subsequently shared with you by Raj Sidhu, leading to you being interviewed for the role. I have been unable to establish why you were excluded from the original email, as Anthony is no longer with the business, however I am satisfied that the details of the role were shared with you and that you did get the opportunity to interview for the role.

I have been unable to find any evidence to suggest any pre-selection. Although some of your colleagues were able to secure alternative roles, the majority were done so as a result of the language they spoke matching the need for the role.

Any roles that could have been performed by a number of individuals and not by one specific indivdual, due to the language they spoke, were subject to interview, as this was considered the fairest way in which to select an individual for the role. Any decisions made on who was to be the successful applicant(s) were made by the hiring manager, and in relation to the specific requirements for the role.

After consideration of the points you raised, I am unable to uphold your appeal; therefore, the original decision stands.”

Mr. Warriner, in his evidence, emphasised that age was not a factor in the decision. He also described how the Respondent invests heavily in training and upskilling its employees and it would make no sense for the Respondent to want to lose this expertise from its workforce.

The Complainant gave her own evidence and challenged certain aspects of the Respondent’s evidence.

The Complainant sought to introduce into evidence a series of text message which she had received from a colleague employed by the Respondent. The Complainant would not identify this individual who did not give evidence at the hearing. The entirety of this evidence was excluded as hearsay.

The Complainant contended that a named employee was afforded special treatment when she was moved from Group A to Group B thus extending her employment on Account Y. Ms. Sidhu explained that this employee had not originally been assigned to any language-specific location but was a Senior Partner Specialist who had responsibilities in overseeing the work of sales representatives including in a French speaking regions. This employee was on a higher salary and worked at a higher level than the Complainant. The Complainant was not considered for this position as she (the Complainant) would have needed training in the role and there simply wasn’t enough time left on the account to make this realistic.

Ms. Sidhu clarified that a Spanish speaker was redeployed to a French-speaking role because French was that person’s native language with Spanish as a secondary language.

As regards the available position on Contract Z. The Complainant contended that she was not told about this vacancy until she heard about it in a group meeting conducted by Ms. Sidhu on the 25th of March 2024. Following that meeting in a separate conversation with Ms. Sidhu, the Complainant stated that she wanted to apply for the position and Ms. Sidhu undertook to arrange an interview for her. The Complainant also asked why an email about the job, which had been sent by her manager on Account Y to other staff members, had not also been sent to her by that manager but there was no explanation for this from Ms. Sidhu during that conversation. The Complainant attended an interview for this job which she thought had gone very well and she was disappointed when she did not secure the position. She asked Ms. Sidhu to provide some feedback from the interview, but she did not receive this. It transpired that two native English speakers were appointed to the position by the client’s hiring managers and those individuals were already located in the vicinity of Liverpool. The Complainant made the point that there was a mismatch between the job description and the requirements which were applied by the client. She said that in the interview with the hiring managers, she was not asked about moving to Liverpool. 

Ms. Sidhu said that as far as she was aware, the client on this account was looking for native English speakers who were located or were prepared to move to the UK. She agreed with the Complainant that she would request post-interview feedback from the client’s hiring managers and she did so, but the feedback was not provided. Ms. Sidhu said that she was not responsible for and could not comment on the email about the vacancy from which the Complainant said she was excluded, as manager M (who reported to her at the time) subsequently left the Respondent’s employment. She said on affirmation, having checked her emails, that there were no other emails sent to people on the List regarding vacancies from which the Complainant was excluded and she added that as manager M reported to her, she would have been copied on any such emails. Ms. Sidhu could not comment on why this vacancy was not posted on the internal portal where vacancies were normally posted. However, she did clarify that the process adopted was such that where a direct match was found between a job description and people on the list, direct contact was made with such people before the jobs were posted or advertised internally on the portal. 

As regards the work available on Contract W. This issue was not raised by the Complainant in the consultation meetings or in the appeal but was raised in the Complainant’s submission and at the hearing. The position was for a Programme Manager role. It was filled by a native Spanish Speaker who had English as a second language. The Complainant argued that she had programme manager qualifications, skills and previous experience which were set out on her curriculum vitae and that Ms. Sidhu should have put the Complainant forward for this role. Ms. Sidhu explained that in this particular case the Client holding Account W had approached her and asked her whether she had a current programme manager available for an immediate start. The employee put forward was performing programme manager functions and thus had experience within the Respondent’s employment and as this employee was a fit, she was nominated and accepted by the Client. Language and location were not the main factors. The client asked for someone currently doing a programme manager role who could start immediately. The Complainant was not nominated because she was not then a programme manager nor had she held such a role during her employment with the Respondent.  The Complainant accepted the logic behind the appointment, but she insisted that she too should have been suggested to the Client for the role. She also made the point that the person appointed was not due to finish up work on Account Y until June 2024 and during this period the Complainant could have been trained up to work as a project manager on Account W. Ms. Sidhu clarified that this was not the case, that the person appointed started work on Account W immediately and the duties she was performing on Account Y during the run-off of the work on that account were temporarily re-absorbed by Ms. Sidhu and others.

The Programme Manager role was the only one available on Account W at the time of the Complainant’s dismissal. Although further vacancies arose following the Complainant’s dismissal, these were not available at the time nor was the Respondent aware that they would become available.

Ms. Sidhu denied that the Complainant’s age or the level of her remuneration played any role whatsoever in her dismissal. She denied that the Respondent had always planned to dismiss the Complainant.

Analysis and Findings

In most cases involving a challenge by way of an unfair dismissal claim to a redundancy dismissal the process of assessing the merits of such a claim involves an examination of three issues:

-       Whether a genuine redundancy situation existed

-       Whether the Complainant was fairly selected for redundancy

-       Whether in all of the circumstances the Respondent acted fairly and reasonably

In the present case, because of the overlap between the second and third of the above issues, they will be considered together.

Whether a genuine redundancy situation existed

When Account Y was lost, a group of employees whose work would come to an end when the account was wound down was drawn up by the Respondent. A list was thereby generated of individuals at risk (“the List”).

The Complainant alleged that when she was assigned to work on Account Y she was given guarantees by the Respondent that her employment would be secure. Whether she understood this to mean that she would be guaranteed a job on Account Y specifically or whether she understood it to mean that even if the work on Account Y finished that she had been guaranteed another employment (or redeployment) I cannot accept that any such absolute and unqualified guarantee could have been or was in fact given by the Respondent. Such a guarantee would run contrary to the normal course of employment which is always vulnerable to change. The reality is that no job of any sort is or can be guaranteed absolutely and all employment is subject to the vicissitudes of economic change, a fact which is well recognised in Irish law and is specifically reflected in the definition of redundancy. The Complainant’s employment was no exception, and it was vulnerable to change. Insofar as the Complainant understood that she was being guaranteed redeployment if her placing on Account Y came to an end, again she may have understood this to have been the case but there is no evidence that a contractual guarantee was given in this regard.

If and to the extent that the perceived guarantee of redeployment in the event of an account loss was based on an expectation arising from similar events in the past, there is evidence to suggest that where previous accounts were lost, redundancies were avoided by the Respondent. Indeed, the Complainant herself benefited from such an eventuality when she was redeployed to Account Y when her work on Account X came to an end.  She also said that she had heard of some employees who had been successively redeployed multiple times. The Respondent’s position was that whilst this may have been the case in the past, previous account losses – each of which required affected employees to be redeployed – reduced the availability of alternative positions significantly which in turn made it more difficult to redeploy all employees on “the List” generated by the loss of Account Y. Whilst this fact in part explains why all those on the list were not automatically transferred, another reality is that the Respondent at least on this occasion, does not appear to have had a free hand in transferring employees to accounts held by other clients. The decision to redeploy any candidate was not within the absolute gift of the Respondent but rather was subject to the specification set by clients who also had the final say in whether to accept any individual put forward for consideration by the Respondent. In the circumstances I find that if redeployment had been achieved more easily in the past this did not create a custom or practice where it was guaranteed absolutely into the future. The concept of redundancy is driven by the concept of change and in the present case a change had occurred such as to make the redeployment process more complicated. This fact does not undermine the fact that a redundancy situation existed, nor do I find that redeployments and the way they were achieved in the past created any form of guarantee in the form of a custom, practice or legitimate expectation for the future. 

The Complainant also suggested that the Respondent was or should have been aware when the Complainant was assigned to work on Account Y, that the work on this account would only be of limited duration. The Respondent contended that when the Complainant was assigned from Account X to Account Y, the latter was a long-standing and stable account, and the Respondent could not have had any advance knowledge that it would be lost. There is no credible evidence to rebut this evidence and I cannot see any basis for a suggestion that the Respondent deliberately assigned the Complainant to a vulnerable account to more plausibly facilitate her dismissal for redundancy.

Although the Complainant did not accept that the loss of Account Y generated a redundancy situation, I find that what occurred when the Account was lost does come within the definition of redundancy as defined by Section 7 (2) (a) and/or (b) and/or (c) of the Redundancy Payments Act 1969 (as amended). The process operated logically in that any employee whose work would cease when the account was wound down, was placed on the List and no evidence was adduced to indicate any other basis whereby the Complainant’s position, or that of anyone else affected by the loss of the Account , was identified as being at risk of redundancy. 

Unfair Selection – Redeployment – Procedures

The Concept of unfair selection is governed by Section 6 (3) of the UDA. The application of that provision involves a comparative exercise the purpose of which is to identify any situation whereby: 

“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”

While this provision relies on a comparison with other employees who have not been dismissed, paragraph (a) of the same subsection envisages a situation where “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”. One such matter, which is referred to at subsection (2) paragraph (ee),  is “the age of the employee”.

It was not disputed that all positions held by employees of the Respondent servicing Account Y were identified as being at risk of redundancy. As the Complainant’s position fell into this category, it was identified as being at risk of redundancy in the same way as all other positions affected by the loss of Account Y. Thus, insofar as the process of the identification positions at risk of redundancy was concerned there can be no suggestion that the Complainant was treated in any way differently to her colleagues from the point of view of her position being identified as at risk.  

In the present case however, what led to the dismissal of the Complainant was the fact that she was not redeployed by the Respondent after her position had been identified as being at risk. The Complainant challenged the redeployment process as it was applied to her on several grounds which involved comparisons with other employees allegedly afforded more preferential treatment, procedural issues including an alleged lack of information and an allegation of age discrimination.  Some of these issues could fall within the category of unfair selection whilst others cannot be so described. However as they must all be considered I will deal with them under the more general provisions of Section 6 subsection (7) (a) as I deem it appropriate in the present case, in determining whether the dismissal was an unfair dismissal to have regard to “the reasonableness or otherwise of the conduct (whether by act or omission) of the employer in relation to the dismissal”.

Redeployment Procedures– Reasonableness of the Respondent’s Conduct

The Respondent’s evidence was that the redeployment of candidates whose positions were at risk arising from the loss of Account Y, came about by the application of one or other or a combination of the following criteria:

1. The native language of the candidate as required by the Client
2. The location of the candidate as required by the Client
3. The skill-set and experience of the candidate as required by the Client

The Complainant alleged that the above factors were not clearly explained to her and lacked transparency. Furthermore, the Complainant raised specific instances where, she contended, other employees on the List had been afforded preferential treatment. These two issues are interrelated and will be examined together by reference to the evidence and the specific instances which the Complainant identified in her submissions and evidence.

With regard to the identified employee who was moved from the first wave on Group A to the second on Group B, I am satisfied that the role which was being performed by this individual, which was described as a Senior role which that person was already trained to and was in fact performing, had a wider scope of responsibility, attracted higher remuneration and was not comparable to that of the Complainant. This being so, I find that there was a rational reason for the placement of this individual rather than the Complainant onto the second group which cannot reasonably be described as preferential treatment.

As regards the identified Spanish speaker who was redeployed, it was not contested that this individual was a native French-speaker who was redeployed to a French-speaking role. The only comparison with the Complainant was that this individual, like the Complainant, also spoke Spanish but in this individual’s case Spanish was that person’s second language. In such circumstances I find that the redeployment of that individual rather than the Complainant was objectively reasonable and that the Complainant would not have been suited to this role and she was not therefore unreasonably or unfairly excluded from it.

Concerning the appointment of an identified employee to the position of Programme Manager on Account W, the Complainant contended that she would have been suitable for this position and that the Respondent acted unfairly by not putting her forward and allowing her the opportunity to compete for it. I note that the issue was raised by the Complainant for the first time in her submissions during the present process and was not raised internally at any stage. Nonetheless the Respondent was able to give detailed evidence as to the process which led to this appointment and the reasons why the Complainant was not put forward. I accept the Respondent’s evidence that the Client had requested a person who was a current programme manager within its organisation who was available to start immediately, and I also accept the Respondent’s evidence that the person appointed was already working in the Respondent’s employment as a programme manager on Account Y and she was thus a current programme manager. Although she had previous experience of programme management on her curriculum vitae and had done such work before joining the Respondent, the Complainant was not working as a programme manager nor had she ever done so during her employment with the Respondent. Although it is arguable, as the Complainant contended, that the Respondent could have approached the Client holding Account Z and made a special case to that client for the Complainant to be considered, even though she was not a current programme manager and had not done such work during the employment with the Respondent, such a step would have run contrary to the express request made by that client for a current programme manager. My conclusion is that although the Respondent was obliged to make reasonable efforts to redeploy the Complainant, such an obligation did not extend to making a proposal which did not match the express request made by the Client. I conclude that the failure to make a special case for the Complainant in this particular situation cannot be deemed so unreasonable as to render the process of redeployment and the subsequent dismissal unfair. 

As regards the failure to notify the Complainant of the vacancy on Contract Z, it was not disputed that the Complainant was not notified of this vacancy by manager M and it also appears to be the case that this vacancy was not posted on the internal portal. It follows that if the Complainant had not found out about the vacancy when Ms. Sidhu mentioned it in a group meeting, she would not have had the opportunity to apply. As against this is the fact that the Complainant was not in fact prejudiced by the situation as she did request Ms. Sidhu for an interview and one was arranged for her which she attended. As regards the reason for the Complainant’s exclusion form manager M’s email about the vacancy, no definitive reason for this is available. However, the outcome of the interviews, where two native English speakers who would be based in the UK were appointed, does suggest that the Complainant may have been ruled out for that vacancy based on either language or location or both as Ms. Sidhu did say that it had been her understanding that these requirement were mentioned orally (if not on the written specification) by the hiring managers who made the final decision on the appointments. The Complainant maintained that the fact that she was not notified of this vacancy raised the question as to whether she was excluded from any other opportunities of a similar nature. However, apart from the instances which she raised during the hearing (as discussed above) the Complainant could not identify any other instances where individuals on the List were redeployed to positions for which she would have been suitable. It is also the case that the Complainant was encouraged to and did in fact apply for a number of positions on her own initiative and moreover, she was never prevented from exploring any position which arose in the consultation process including the Retail and Bank positions. 

I accept the Respondent’s evidence that the Respondent was not free to disregard the requirements of their clients and that the Respondent was not in a position unilaterally to place employees with clients but instead could only nominate candidates who matched the clients’ requirements, the decision whether to accept those candidates being one for the client’s hiring managers rather than the Respondent. From a careful examination of the notes of the consultation meeting and the evidence given at the hearing I find, on the balance of probability, that reasonable efforts were made by the Respondent during the consultation meetings to explain the decision-making process adopted by the Respondent in relation to redeployments. I have considered the successful redeployments which arose in the evidence, and I am satisfied that each of them is objectively attributable to the application of one or other, or a combination of, the three factors outlined by the Respondent. Insofar as the Complainant maintained that she was not provided with meeting notes, it is the case that even if this was so, the Complainant was present at those meetings, and she did have all the notes available to her during the adjudication hearing but did not specifically challenge their content. In such circumstances I find that the failure to provide the notes sooner, though regrettable and not best practice, did not materially prejudice the Complainant.

Turning to the Complainant’s allegation that her dismissal was related either directly or indirectly to age discrimination, the Complainant’s submission summarised the allegation as follows: “My treatment reflected a deeper culture of selective inclusion, and I believe I was judged not on performance, but on subjective, age-related perceptions, despite that never being said outright.” I have also considered the evidence put forward by the Complainant to support this allegation. The Complainant gave evidence that she encountered difficulties with her former manager L when working on Account X before her reassignment to Account Y. She herself expressed the view that she felt bullied by this individual and that age discrimination against her was at least in part the basis of the motivation for this behaviour. The Complainant did refer to these issues in the consultation meetings. The Respondent did not ignore the issues but instead expressly invited the Complainant to initiate a formal complaint about them separately to the consultation process. The Complainant said that she was going to take up this suggestion, but she did not do so.

It is difficult to see how this allegation is to be construed. While not alleging age discrimination directly against Ms. Sidhu or the HR officer who took the consultation meeting with her, the Complainant alleged that the Respondent had not taken responsibility as an organisation for the consequences upon the Complainant of the conduct of manager L. In the absence of a formal complaint giving the Respondent an opportunity to investigate and to answer this charge, it cannot be sustained.

Insofar as the Complainant has suggested that her difficulties with manager L followed her into Account Y and went against her when the redeployment process was being undertaken, I have already found that the redeployment process was not conducted unfairly and that any possible anomalies identified by the Complainant were explained rationally and objectively; this being the case, I find that there was no scope for age discrimination in the process and there is no evidence that perceived age bias played any role in the process whereby possible roles suitable to the Complainant were identified.

The Complainant has advanced a suggestion that the process which was followed in the present case had the result that the four individuals who were not redeployed and were dismissed were all over the age of forty. The suggestion would appear to be that the result of the redeployment was in some way manipulated by the Respondent to exclude older workers or if this was not done deliberately then the result nonetheless fell more heavily on older workers.  Even if this is the case and I do not make any such finding, I have already found that the redeployment process and its outcome in the Complainant’s case were applied fairly and reasonably to the Complainant such that any possibility of an outcome influenced even indirectly and/or unintentionally by age discrimination would be rebutted by the existence of objective reasons for the dismissal, which are unrelated to age. It is also the case that the Respondent was not in complete control of the redeployment process since the Respondent could only refer employees from the List to its clients, and the ultimate decision as to whether to take on those employees was made by those clients and not by the Respondent.

Although the Complainant understood that she had been given an absolute guarantee that she would always be redeployed, there is insufficient evidence to show that this any such term had been expressly agreed and/or recorded in writing. Moreover, if such a contractual guarantee was ever given by the Respondent it is difficult to see how it could have been absolute given the statutory recognition of the concept of redundancy in Irish law. 

The Respondent was not obliged to place employees with clients without their approval nor was the Respondent obliged to create a role for the Complainant which did not otherwise exist. The Respondent was obliged to make reasonable efforts to redeploy the Complainant and this the Respondent did and in so doing the Respondent observed fair procedures and the Complainant was fully and meaningfully consulted throughout the process.

In the circumstances I find that the Complainant was dismissed on grounds of redundancy and accordingly her dismissal was not unfair.

CA-00067728-001 - Complaint under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 – The Complainant was not unfairly dismissed

CA-00067728-002 - Complaint under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 – Complainant withdrawn

Unfair Dismissal –– Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 – 2015: Sections 6 (1), 6 (2), 6 (3), 6 (4), 6 (7) – Redundancy payments Act 1969 – Section 7 (2) -  Unfair Selection - Redeployment