UDD2521

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00046976 (CA-00057800-001)

BACKGROUND:

The Worker appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officerto the Labour Court on 6th March 2024 in accordance with Section 8A of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 to 2015. A Labour Court hearing took place on 28th May 2025. The following is the Decision of the Court.

DECISION:

1 Background to the Appeal

 This is an appeal by Ms Daramola (the Complainant) against Adjudication Officer’s Decision ADJ-00045976 CA-00057800-001 given under the Unfair Dismissals Acta 1977 to 2015 (the Act’s) in a claim against her previous employer Blue Space Business Management Ltd (the Respondent) that she was unfairly dismissed.  The Adjudication Officer held that her complaint was not well founded noting that the Complainant did not attend the hearing. There is a linked case PW/24/36. At the commencement of the hearing the Complainant confirmed that she was withdrawing her Equality complaint ADE/24/33.

The complaint was lodged with the WRC on 19 July 2023, appealed to the Labour Court 6 March 2024 and a hearing was held on 28 May 2025.  The Complainant commenced work with the Respondent in April 2022 as an Accounts Assistant and her employment ended on 15 June 2023.  At the commencement of the hearing Mr Paul Gough for the Respondent confirmed that the Respondent would pay the sum of €1,009.73 in respect of outstanding Annual leave, €134.61 in respect of a Public Holiday and €134.63 in respect of a Saturday worked.

2 Summary of Respondents submission

Mr Paul Gough on behalf of the Respondent submitted that the Complainant’s dismissal arose from a decision to outsource the company’s accounting and payroll systems. The Respondent’s Financial Director had resigned in early 2023 leaving the Finance department with just one member of staff the Complainant. On 17 April 2023 after consulting with external financial consultants and considering the best structure for the organisation the Company Directors decided to outsource the finance activities to an external consultant.

On 25 April 2023 one of the Directors met the Complainant to communicate to her that the accounts were going to be outsourced and consequently her role was to be made redundant. At that point in time the Respondent understood that the Complainant was on a one-year fixed term contract that was due to end on 25 April 2023. The Respondent accepted that the Complainant had not been issued with a contract or a statement of her terms and conditions of work. When the Complainant raised the fact that she was employed in a full-time permanent role, the Respondent accepted that and instead of providing her with minimum notice offered her one months’ notice and suggested that she could remain working for three months while taking time off to source other employment.  The Complainant asked for some days off to process the information and was granted same. She was not asked to leave her laptop and login details. On 2nd May the Complainant sent in a medical certificate stating that she was unable to work from the 2 May to 15 May 2023 due to stress.

On 10 May the Employer sent a letter stating that that they were giving her a months’ notice of redundancy but that she did not have to work the notice period, and her redundancy would be effective from 15 June 2023. Mr Gough submitted that the redundancy arose because the Respondent had decided to outsource the area of work where the Complainant worked and that was provided for under the Act. The Respondent is very clear that the sole reason for ceasing the Complainant’s employment was the restructuring of the finance department.

3 Summary of Complainants submission

The Complainant submitted that she was not given a contract or statement of her terms and conditions of employment while working for the Respondent. It was her clear understanding that she was employed in a permanent position. At the time HR matters were dealt with by one of the Directors. After the Finance director left in January 2023, she was on her own in the Finance Department from January to March 2023.  In February 2023 she was instructed to come into work on a Public Holiday and a Saturday for which she was not paid. In March 2023 s new Finance Manager commenced work. She was instructed to train him in on the accounts system unaware that he would ultimately take over her role. In early April she was asked about the nature of her employment contract and confirmed that it was a permanent contract.

 It is the Complainant’s submission that she was summarily dismissed on 25 April 2023 without warning. She stated that she was in shock at the turn of events and her doctor certified her unfit for work. She understood that she was to be paid three months’ salary but that was later reduced to one month but ultimately, she was not paid at all.

On 25 April 2023 she was called to a meeting where she was told that the Company had understood she was on a one-year fixed term contract. It had not been their intention to renew it and therefore she was being made redundant effective immediately. She was told to leave her work laptop and login details on her way out of the building. This was followed up with a request for her office keys. She asked for and was granted three days annual leave to process what had happened. She was due to return to work on 2 May 2023, but her doctor certified her unfit for work.  The Complainant wrote to the Respondent on 2 June 2023 looking for clarification around her redundancy, noting that MH was still working in the Finance Department. She received a response on 26 June 2023 which stated that he was employed by a different company and was working as a consultant. The letter also acknowledged the confusion over her employment status and apologised for same.

It is the Complainant’s submission that she was unfairly dismissed. The Complainant did not quantify her losses for the Court or provide proof of mitigation other than to say that she had taken up temporary employment shortly after she had left and that she was looking for compensation.

4 Relevant Law

Section 6 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, as amended, states, in relevant part, as follows:

6.Unfair dismissal

(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.

(2)……………..

(3)………….

(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:

(a)

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

(b)

the conduct of the employee,

(c)

the redundancy of the employee, and

(d)

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

5 Discussion and Decision

 The Respondent submitted that the Complainant had been made redundant and therefore the dismissal was not unfair. However, they confirmed that they had initially sought to let her go on the basis that her fixed term contract had expired only to discover that she was a permanent employee. The decision to outsource the Finance Department had been made on17th April 2022 a week before they had met with the Complainant. They confirmed that there had been no discussion or engagement with the Complainant prior to the decision to make her position redundant, nor had she ever been informed that her position was in danger of being made redundant.

 While the Act does provide that the redundancy of an employee can be deemed not to be an unfair dismissal. That provision of the Act, does not exist in a vacuum. The Respondent is still expected to apply fair procedure including notifying the Complainant that her position is being considered for redundancy in advance of the decision being made, consider other options to redundancy and operating a fair selection for redundancy process. As it is not disputed that no engagement took place with the Complainant prior to the 25 April 2023 when she was informed, she was being made redundant the Court finds that the dismissal was unfair. The Complainant did not provide any evidence of mitigation of loss or what her loss was other than to state she had taken up another employment albeit a temporary one within a short period of time. On that basis the Court determines that the appropriate remedy for the unfair dismissal is compensation and awards the Complainant the equivalent of four weeks wages.

The appeal is upheld. The decision of the Adjudication Officer is set aside.

 The Court so determines.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Louise O'Donnell
FC	______________________
20 June 2025	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ms Fiona Corcoran, Court Secretary.