Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Joanne  Kennedy

Stradbally Ladders Ltd.

Representatives

 Dawson O'Toole Solicitors

 Concordia Consulting

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-00066709-001

15/10/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 23 of the Parent’s Leave and Benefit Act 2019

CA-00066709-002

15/10/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

CA-00066709-003

15/10/2024

The Complainant was employed as an Administrative Assistant and went on maternity leave and subsequently paternity leave as allowed by statute. The Respondent conducted a comprehensive office activities review before and during her leave and at the conclusion of the Complainants maternity leave she was informed her paternity leave was approved but her role was redundant.  The Complainant submitted complaints that her dismissal was unfair and that the Respondent was in breach of protections for maternity and parental leave. The Complainant confirmed to the Hearing she has received the minimum notice due since the date she submitted that complaint but sought compensation for the delay in paying her notice entitlements.

The Complainant was employed as an Administrative Assistant with the Respondent on the 21 st September 2020.

The Complainant went on maternity leave on or about the 19th January 2024.

Complaint under the Unfair Dismissal Acts

On the 17th June 2024 the Complainant notified the Respondent that her maternity leave was due to expire on the 22nd July 2024 and that she wished to avail of parental leave.

By letter of the 8 th July 2024 the Respondent notified the Complainant that it was making her redundant with effect from the 20 th September 2024.

The Complainant sought to invoke the grievance procedure in relation to the decision to make her redundant by email of the 23 rd July 2024. Following correspondence from the Respondent she sought to appeal the decision to make her redundant. She was informed by email of the Respondent on 11 th September 2024 that on review of the administration function of the company her role had ceased and her redundancy was effective.

In breach of the Respondent's own appeal procedure the Complainant was not given a hearing in relation to her appeal and was merely informed that the redundancy was effective by the Respondent's aforesaid email of the 1 I th September 2024. In further breach of the Respondent's own appeal procedure the appeal was not conducted by a member of staff not previously connected with the said decision but rather by the director who had notified her of the original decision to make her redundant in the Respondent's aforesaid letter of the 8th July 2024.

In the alternative, the Respondent did not deal with her appeal in accordance with fair procedures.

The Complainant was unfairly selected for redundancy by the Respondent and the Respondent failed to act in accordance with fair procedures in that inter alia it failed to engage with her in a consultation process before arriving at its decision to make her redundant.

Complaint under the Maternity Protection Acts

The Complainants  employment was terminated whilst she was absent from work on protected leave and the Respondent is in breach of Section 23 of the Maternity Protection Act 1994 as amended. She was not afforded her right to return to work or to suitable alternative work on expiry of her protective leave and the Respondent is in breach of Sections 26 and Section 27 of the Maternity Protection Act 1994 as amended. Furthermore, in it's failure to afford the Complainant her right to return to work the Respondent is in breach of it's own Maternity Leave Policy.

Complaint under the Minimum Notice Act

The Complainant submitted that the Respondent did not pay her minimum notice entitlement of 2 weeks pay. The Complainant advised the Hearing she did subsequently receive her notice but sought compensations for the delay in making the payment.

The Respondent is Ireland’s only manufacturer of timber, aluminium and fibreglass ladders. The Company, which was founded in 1983 by Mr Isaac Gunnell, has developed an enviable reputation both nationally and internationally for producing a top-class range of products.

Based in Stradbally, Co. Laois, the Company now employs 21 people.

In 2021, Mr Gunnell decided to take a step back from the day to day business and appointed two new Directors to take over the running of the Company. 

Office Administration Review: 

Having dealt with initial business legacy issues, the Company Directors embarked on a major review of the business in 2023. A crucial part of this process involved a full review of office administration processes/workload, with a view to identifying efficiencies and streamlining processes, which at that point were primarily paper in nature. 

The Company appointed a HR Consultant, Ms Jacqui O’Grady, to evaluate administrative operations and make appropriate recommendations to improve efficiencies and streamline the admin/support processes.

On 13 June 2023, Ms O’Grady conducted an initial meeting with the Directors at the Company’s premises to assess administrative operations. A follow-up visit took place on 5 July 2023, during which she reviewed the workload attaching to all non-manufacturing tasks and activities.  

At the time of this visit to the premises, the Complainant was on sick leave (9 June - 7 July 2023) and, therefore, was unavailable to meet with the consultant. Upon the Complainant’s return to work, Ms O’Grady met with her to get a full understanding of her role and workload, with a view to evaluating the position and the identification of potential efficiencies. This meeting took place on 12 July 2023.

Following her review of the Complainant’s role/workload, Ms O’Grady identified inefficiencies attaching to the manual invoicing system and the outdated phone systems. Based on these findings, Ms O’Grady recommended implementing a cloud-based phone system and an automated invoicing solution to enhance efficiency and reduce risk.

Implementation of Technological and Process Changes: 

Based on the outcome of the review, the Company decided to introduce a new business model for sales, administration and financial management.  

Between September and October 2023, the Company consulted with system experts regarding the introduction of new technology and outsourcing accounts-related tasks.

As a result of these consultations the following changes were introduced: -

A new phone system was installed on 18 October 2023, routing incoming calls directly to the appropriate departments, eliminating the need for an Admin Assistant to handle calls.

In December 2023, the Company outsourced key accounts functions to an external provider and introduced Xero accounting software, streamlining the invoicing process and eliminating the need for manual data entry. The process was reduced from 12 steps to one, significantly improving efficiency and mitigating risks

The new business model and the various systems implemented to support that, introduced efficiencies and streamlined processes to the extent that the role of an Admin Assistant was no longer required. Consequently, this role, which was carried out by the Complainant at that time, was deemed unnecessary going forward.

This decision in relation to the elimination of the Admin Assistant role was further underpinned by the fact that during the Complainant’s periods of sick leave and absence during 2024 (9 June – 7 July, 10 – 20 October and 28/29 November) while her role was not backfilled, there was minimal backlog or disruption to the business.

Response to The Complainant’s Complaints:

1)Complaint Ref: CA-00066709-001 - Unfair Dismissals Claim: 

Complaint: In her submission, the Complainant asserts that she was unfairly selected for redundancy and that the Company failed to engage with her in a consultation process before arriving at the decision to make her redundant. 

Company Response: Stradbally Ladders Ltd. refutes the claim of unfair dismissal, submitting that the Complainant’s redundancy was a genuine business decision which followed a full review, conducted by an external consultant, which in turn led to the implementation of technological solutions and outsourcing of tasks. These changes supported the introduction of the new business model which was necessary to secure the financial stability of the business and provide the platform for an expansion into new markets.

Section 7 (2) (b) of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 sets out that:

 “For the purposes of subsection (1) an employee who is dismissed shall be taken to be dismissed by reason of redundancy if the dismissal is attributable wholly or mainly to – the fact that the requirements of that business for employees to carry out work of a particular kind, or for the 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”. 

Based on the review and the process implementations implemented (as set out above), the Company submits that the role of Admin Assistant, which was at that time performed by the Complainant, ceased and there was no longer a requirement for her to carry out those duties.   Consequently, in line with the above section of the Act, the Company submits that the termination of the Complainant’s position was by reason of genuine redundancy and, therefore, cannot be considered as an unfair dismissal. In her submission, the Complainant further alleges that the Company failed to engage with her in a consultation process before arriving at its decision to make her position redundant.

As previously stated, the HR Consultant engaged by the Company to conduct the review of the administration functions, consulted with the Complainant, in early July, in relation to her role, so she was clearly aware that the review process was taking place.  

Subsequent to this, The Complainant advised the company that she was pregnant and that she intended to commence maternity leave on 22 January 2024. The Complainant had two periods of sick leave in October and November 2023 before commencing a further period of sick leave on 12 December 2023, which was supported by a medical certificate confirming she would not return to work before maternity leave. 

As already stated above, the implementation of the new systems and the introduction of the new processes, took place in the October – December period. Consequently, by the end of 2023, based on the successful implementation of the new processes, it was confirmed that the role of Admin Assistant was no longer required and the decision to make the position redundant was made by the Company.

However, by the time the Company had finalised its decision, the Complainant was on long-term absence from the workplace and was not available for consultation, in the normal circumstances, with regard to her redundancy. While the Complainant’s maternity leave was not due to commence until 22 January 2024, the Company understood, from the medical certification submitted, that her sick leave between 12 December 2023 and the commencement of her maternity leave on 22 January 2024 was related to her pregnancy.  

While the timing of the Company’s decision technically allowed time for consultation with the Complainant prior to her maternity commencing on 22 January 2024, it was decided, in all of the circumstances, that it would be inappropriate to seek to make contact with her. While there were procedural considerations attaching to contacting an employee while on sick leave, the Company was more influenced by the fact that it would have been insensitive and would have displayed a lack of concern for the personal impact such discussions may have had on The Complainant given her circumstances.  Consequently, based on these considerations, the Company decided to postpone advising the Complainant of the redundancy situation until her maternity leave had concluded.

The Complainant’s maternity leave was due to expire on 22 July 2024. By way of e-mail dated 17 June 2024, she advised the company that she wished to extend her leave from work by availing of the Parents Leave Benefit.  While the Parent’s Leave and Benefit Act 2019 provides the employer with the right to postpone the commencement of parent’s leave, the Company, recognising the financial benefit to the Complainant of so doing, extended her leave period to 20 September 2024.

Given that the Complainant’s period of maternity was expiring and that she had engaged the Company in correspondence in relation to her employment, the Company considered it appropriate and timely to advise her of the redundancy situation. Consequently, the Company availed of the opportunity to include the details of the redundancy in the letter of 8 July 2024.

2)Complaint Ref: CA-00066709-002 – Maternity Protection Claim: 

Complaint: In her complaint, the Complainant alleges that her employment was terminated while she was absent from work on protected leave. She further alleges that she was not afforded her right to return to work or to a suitable alternative work.

Company Response: Stradbally Ladders Ltd refutes the claim that the Complainant’s employment was terminated while she was absent from work. The letter of 8 July 20224 clearly states that her employment would terminate, by reason of redundancy, on 20 September 2034, the date on which her parent’s leave concluded.

This letter also advised that due to the nature of the business there was no suitable work available to The Complainant. 

As has been clearly set out above, the Complainant’s role had been made redundant, following a comprehensive review carried out by the Company. The decision in relation to the Complainant’s redundancy was made by the Company prior to the commencement of her maternity leave on 22 January 2024.  However, as detailed above, the Company was not in a position to inform the Complainant of their decision due to her absence on maternity related sick leave, which commenced on 12 December 2023. 

In circumstances where the Complainant was at work in the period leading up to the proposed maternity leave commencement date of 22 January 2024, she would have been advised that her employment was being terminated for reasons of redundancy. In such circumstance the Complainant would have been aware that she would not be returning to work following the birth of her child. 

Consequently, the Company submits that, as a result of the existence of a genuine redundancy situation there was, in effect, no role for the Complainant to return to following the conclusion of her maternity leave. While the impediments placed on the Company by the timings/circumstances that existed at that point in time, in relation to consultation with the Complainant in this regard, they cannot be seen to deflect from or dilute the reality of the situation, i.e. that a genuine redundancy existed and there was no longer a role in the Company for the Complainant. 

3)Complaint Ref: CA-00066709-003 – Minimum Notice Claim: 

Complaint: In her complaint, the Complainant allegesthat she did not receive her minimum notice entitlement of two weeks’ pay.

Company Response: On receiving the Complainant’s submission to the WRC, the Company reviewed this element of complaint. Having done so, the Company acknowledges that the Complainant was not paid her minimum notice entitlement. 

This was a genuine error on the part of the Company, who understood that all the Complainant’s statutory entitlements had been applied as set out in the letter of 8 July 2024. Due to a misinterpretation as to the application of this entitlement, no payment was made.

The Company have now rectified the situation and a cheque for €1,260, representing two weeks’ notice, was sent to the Complainant on 14 August 2025. 

The Company take it that this element of the Complainant’s complaint will be withdrawn.

In conclusion, Stradbally Ladders Ltd respectfully submits that:

•        The redundancy was genuine, resulting from a legitimate business decision to implement technological efficiencies and outsource administrative functions.

•        No suitable alternative role existed for the Complainant within the Company.

•        The timing of redundancy notification was dictated by her absences and leave periods, with the Company acting in a fair and reasonable manner by providing as early notification as it considered appropriate and reasonable for the Complainant.

•        The Complainant received statutory redundancy pay, accrued annual leave, and public holiday pay as of 20 September 2024.

The Company submits that it acted at all times in a reasonable manner and all decisions made in relation to consultation with and notification of the situation took into account the Complainant’s personal circumstances at the time.

The reality of the situation is that the Complainant’s redundancy was solely a business decision aimed at improving efficiency and securing the future of the business

A)   Unfair Dismissal complaint;

The Law.

“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.

(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 a 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 a 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 under statute.

Section 6(6) of the UD Act states:

“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 grounds specified in subsection (4) of this section or that there were other substantial grounds for justifying the dismissal.”

Section 6(7) of the UD Act states:

“Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, in determining if a dismissal is an unfair dismissal, regard may be had [….]

(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 14(1) of the UD Act refers to such dismissal procedure as was furnished to the employee upon entering the contract of employment.

Section 7(2) of the UD Act provides that an Adjudication Officer may consider “compliance or failure to comply by the employer in relation to the employee, with the procedure referred to in subsection (1) of section 14 of this Act or with the provisions of any code of practice relating to procedures regarding dismissal approved of by the Minister”.

The combined effect of the above provisions is to place the statutory burden of proof on the Respondent to show that the reason for the dismissal was substantial and/or within the parameters of Section 6(4); and that it acted reasonably and in accordance with its disciplinary procedure or relevant code of practice. In this particular case as the Complainant was on Maternity Leave at the time she was notified of her redundancy so this case involves the breach of the Maternity Protection Act also.

A number of judgements were considered by the Adjudicator in arriving at my decision.

Mainly, the Looney v Looney, UD83/1984 in which the Eat referred to its role as “to consider, against the facts, what a reasonable employer would have done”.

Secondly, Bunyan v United Dominions Trust (1982) ILRM 404 that states “the fairness or unfairness of a dismissal is to be judged by the objective standard of the way in which a reasonable employer in those circumstances in that line of business, would have behaved”.

It is also relevant to set out the law in relation to the Maternity Protection Act;

Section 26(1) of the Maternity Protection Act (as amended) provides that,

“…on the expiry of a period during which an employee was absent from work while

on protective leave, the employee shall be entitled to return to work…

(b) in the job which the employee held immediately before the start of that period,

and (c) under the contract of employment under which the employee was employed

immediately before the start of that period.”

The Respondent submitted that it went through a very detailed review of its administrative roles and this appears to be the case from the detailed business process review documentation submitted. An Employer has the right to choose how to manage its business and the dismissal of an employee through redundancy is a legitimate and fair dismissal as per the Act. I have considered the oral and written submissions of both parties and conclude that a genuine redundancy situation did exist but the manner in which the Complainant was informed of her termination by letter during her maternity/paternity leave was at best inconsiderate, was in breach of the Maternity Protection Act and gave the Complainant little or no opportunity to plead her case or to discuss alternatives to redundancy, like a shorter week.

The Respondents Maternity Policy states the following

“Return to Work

The employee will have been formally advised in writing by the Company of the end date of any period of maternity leave. The employee is expected to return on the next working day after this date, unless they notify the Company otherwise.”

Overall, given the business case submitted by the Respondent I conclude that a genuine redundancy situation did exist and the Respondent had grounds for making the Complainant redundant. However with regard to “6.7 a) to the reasonableness or otherwise of the conduct (whether by act or omission) of the employer in relation to the dismissal” I find that the Respondent gave no consideration to the Complainants situation by dismissing her at the end of her maternity Leave and the commencement of her Paternity Leave. This is totally in breach of the Maternity Protection Act where an employee is entitled by law to return to work after maternity leave.  While the Respondent stated they were in a position to inform the Complainant of her redundancy prior to her maternity leave but choose not to do so for the Complainants benefit, admirable as this may be, this did not eliminate the Respondents legal obligation to allow the Complainant return to work after her maternity leave. It was up to the Respondent to then discuss the situation and set out its grounds for redundancy with the Complainant on her return to work. The Respondent did not engage in any shape or form with the Complainant regarding alternatives to redundancy.  The Respondent did have a business case which probably justified a redundancy situation but the manner in which it implemented it left a lot to be desired, in addition to being in breach of the Maternity Protection Act. Had the Respondent not breached the Maternity Protection Act the dismissal may have been justified albeit the manner of doing so would not be best practice or reasonable. Taking all this into account and that the Complainant has already received almost 6,000 Euros in a redundancy payment, I decide the Respondent should pay the Complainant an additional 6,000 Euros as a fair and equitable compensation for her unfair dismissal.

B) Maternity/Paternity complaint

The complaint was submitted to the WRC as follows; “I notified my employer during my maternity leave that I wished to take 9 weeks parent's leave from the expiry of my maternity leave and I was given notice of termination of my employment during my maternity leave on the purported grounds of redundancy in breach of the Maternity Protection Act and Parent's Leave Acts.”

Section 19 of the Parental Leave and Benefit Act provides:

“19. Protection of employees from penalisation

(1) An employer shall not penalise, or threaten penalisation of, an employee for proposing to exercise or having exercised his or her entitlement to parent's leave.

(2) For the purposes of this section, penalisation of an employee includes—

(a) dismissal, or the threat of dismissal, of the employee,

(b) unfair treatment of the employee, including selection for redundancy, and

(c) an unfavourable change in the terms or conditions of employment of the employee.

(3) If a penalisation of an employee, in contravention of subsection (1), constitutes a dismissal of the employee, as referred to in subsection (2)(a), the employee may institute proceedings under the Act of 1977 in respect of that dismissal.”

The Complainant Representative clarified that this claim also was an alleged breach of the Maternity Protection Act. Given that I have dealt with the overall situation of the dismissal, including the breach of the Maternity Protection Act above I decide that no specific penalisation (other than the dismissal) occurred under the Parents Leave and Benefits Act and clause 19 (3) applies and I have dealt with this complaint under the Unfair Dismissal Decision.

C )Minimum Notice Act complaint

The Complainants case was that, while the Respondent paid her the notice due, they only paid it 2 weeks prior to the WRC Hearing and was 8 months after it was due. Section 12 of the Act states;

Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act. I find that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed and award her compensation of 6,000 Euros to be paid within 42 days of the date of this decision.  (CA-00066709-001)

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

I find the complaint under Parental Leave and Benefits Act 2019 is a duplicate complaint and is not well founded. (CA-00066709-002))

I find that the complaint under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973 is well founded and award the Complainant 38 Euros compensation for breach of the Act to be paid within 42 days of the date of this decision (CA-00066709-003)

Unfair Dismissal