Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Michael  Reynolds

Oleson Ltd.

Representatives

 Self-represented

Peninsula Business Services Ireland

Act

Complaint

Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00069676-001

02/03/2025

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

CA-00069676-002

02/03/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967

CA-00069676-003

02/03/2025

The Complainant worked for the Respondent as a layered data contracts manager. His position was made redundant in 2024.

The Complainant has more than the requisite two years’ service required under the Redundancy Payments Acts.

The Complainant submits that the redundancy process was unfair procedurally and is seeking a finding of unfair dismissal and compensation. Two employees were made redundant. He submits that there is a contrast between how his redundancy was handled and how the other employee’s redundancy was handled. He further submits that he received no right of appeal. He also submits that there was no matrix.

The Complainant submits the minimum notice he received was inadequate, that he was paid the four weeks’ minimum notice, as per the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act but is entitled to three months’ notice (as per an employment contract dating from 2016). A subsequent one was issued in 2022.

The Complainant characterised himself as a ‘founder’ in the ‘business within a business’ set up in 2022. That was disputed by the Respondent. It submits that he is an employee.

The Respondent denies the Complainant’s claims and submits that it was a genuine redundancy situation due to a downturn in a particular type of business. It submits that there were two roles nested within a ‘business within a business’, both of which were made redundant. It submits that it held an ‘at risk’ meeting with the Complainant in August 2024, and a series of consultation meetings with him in September 2024, during which it proposed a number of alternative roles, all of which were declined/rejected by the Complainant; and that ultimately, his role was made redundant on October 31st 2024. It further submits that it concedes his claim in respect of the three months’ notice pay – that there is a discrepancy between the two contracts issued to the Complainant and that it will honour the earlier contract which sets out three months’ notice pay.

Mr. Reynolds represented himself and gave evidence on his own behalf.

He outlined that he was notified that his role was at risk of redundancy on August 2nd, 2024. He said he was ‘pretty upset’, ‘shocked.’ He said that there was ‘not a lot I could say’, that he was ‘just a bit shocked’, that ‘less than a year previously, we’d had a good core engineering team.’

He outlined that he had sent an email to the MD outlining his concerns as to how the business was going, in June 2024.

He said that there were no strategy, finance or sales meetings that he had been asked to be involved in for quite a while; whereas he submitted that he attended those previously in 2023. He said that a new business development manager came on board, after which he was not invited to those meetings. His view was that things were happening ‘in the background, in secret.’ He expressed the view that there was a new business direction, development, and that had ended up with his role being redundant. He asserted that he thought the company made the decision in 2023 (quite early) and did not communicate that to him or to his staff. He said: ‘All they had to do was involve me in that process.’

He characterised himself as a ‘founder’ in the 2022 ‘business within a business.’ He said that he set up all the systems that the company operated on, based on documentation supplied to him, that he  was always involved in all the technical projects, that they were all won by him and not by the sales team. He said he was involved in every aspect - the scoping, the design etc.

He outlined his earnings and his mitigation. He was earning €107,000 per year, at the Respondent company. He said he found employment on 6/1/2025 in Oslo, Norway and has been working there since, that he had been based there full time until June 2025, and that now he was moved into a transitioning role which was not permanent had no guarantees (contract work). He said that as soon as he found out he was being made redundant, he sought employment elsewhere. He said in terms of earnings that his current work is ‘a little bit better’, but that it is 6 months to 6 months. He said ‘I’m at least as well off now. Depends how many hours a week I work.’

He submitted an organogram. It was his position that the MD was doing other work. The Complainant asserted that the decision to close was taken in 2023. He pointed to the placement of production staff in [a particular client company], and then that being changed around to him not taking a role. His view was that the MD’s focus was elsewhere strategically, and that his time was therefore focussed on other projects, not the work the Complainant was doing with his team, and that that contributed to the winding up of that business arm.

He submitted a ‘proper redundancy letter’ dated 12/11/2024, as a comparator, which was provided to his more junior team member (the other person to have been made redundant). That person was ultimately ‘not let go until April.’

The Complainant submitted that in relation to the project his more junior teammate was working on ‘either of us could have worked on that project. My question is why was I, as the more senior employee let go.’

On cross-examination

He was asked if he was involved in any other redundancy process? He said: ‘No.’

He was asked about his assertion that ‘LIFO’ [Last In First Out] should be used, and whether he thought that was standard policy? He expressed the view that it was.

He was asked about the meeting on 2/8/2024, that led to the company putting your role ‘at risk’  and what his understanding of that was.

He said: ‘That the company was ‘at risk’. To me, that would have been Oleson shutting down. It had transitioned into a recruitment business – that’s why I produced the organisation chart, (I hadn’t seen half the names there).’

He was asked about his submission that he was a ‘founder.’ He said he ‘worked at the business at the start.’ He said that he was ‘promised shares but wasn’t given any.’ He said he had ‘trusted’, that he ‘worked with the Hanley family.’ It was put to him that he had a contract of employment, i.e. that he was an employee.

It was put to him that he thought he should have been consulted in relation to the strategic business direction. He said that he made many decisions, hiring decisions etc., in conjunction with the MD. He said that the owners of the company relied on him a lot for his knowledge in the area, for strategy. It was put to him that people are hired for their expertise [but they are still employees].

He said that he was the ‘engineering manager.’ He said: ‘Of course, I had decision making power. ‘I took part in a lot of strategic decisions.’

The two versions of his submission were put to him (Version 1 and Version 2). It was put to him that in Submission 1, it sets out ‘your role was at risk’ but that ‘If the company was at risk, would that mean redundancy for you.’

It was put to him that the note on 30/09/2024, reflects that you were upset. He responded by citing Section E of Aisling’s notes, saying: ‘Does that sound like I was not upset’

He outlined his commitment to the company since he joined in 2016.

The organisational chart was addressed. He said there were three or four versions of it on the system – this was the last version (the one submitted). It was put to him that he did not know the purpose or the reason it was created. He said that he was excluded from all forms of communication (finance, strategy) from mid-2023 onwards.

His email of October 1st was put to him where he referenced these phone calls from September 13th, 19th and 25th of September. He said (of the notes): ‘I have no recollection of the contents of those. They were never circulated to me.’

He said: ‘I have no recollection of them. I would have a recollection of them if the documents had been circulated.’

He was asked about the previous contract, of which the company had requested he provide a copy. He said that he had sent a ‘screenshot, because they should have the contract already by law.’

The Complainants closing remarks – he read out his statement, as his closing remarks.

He said that he found himself suddenly unemployed, just after his father’s death and just before Christmas. He said this caused great difficulty.

He submitted that the decision was made first, and the paperwork supplied later on, that there was no matrix.

He said there was a business pivot with no staff-wide communication, and that there were gaps on key communications.

He submitted [Named company] was not a genuine redeployment, that his counterpart (more junior teammate who was also made redundant) received a structured appeal process. He said that he was asking for a finding of Unfair Dismissal.

He said the three months’ notice should be running from his termination date and not September 30th.

The Complainant re-iterated that the minutes of the various meetings were never submitted to him. [Adjudication Officer’s Note: I have had regard to them as notes, but not as minutes.]

Summary, as per the written submission of the Respondent

The Respondent submits that the claims are not well founded, the Complainant was part of a redundancy process, that was both fair and reasonable, was given four (4) weeks’ notice in accordance with his terms and conditions of employment and in compliance with the Minimum Notice Act and paid the full amount of redundancy payment owed. It is further submitted that the Complainant was additionally paid a good will gesture in relation to the notice which the employee claimed he was owed despite not being able to prove the entitlement.

It is submitted that the Complainant began his employment with Hanley Automation Limited on or about 9th May 2016, and transferred to Oleson on 1st January 2022 as a Layered Data Contracts Manager. At the time, the Complainant accepted and signed a new terms and conditions of employment that confirmed the continuity of service and clearly indicated that the new terms and conditions of employment supersedes any previous contracts.

The Respondent is a professional services company that operates across the provision of Industrial Automation and Cybersecurity services to Manufacturing companies predominately in the Irish Life-Sciences market. The business operates by providing either a tailored structured project delivery service (Projects Business) or in the provision of resources to allow customers to manage in house automation services (Resourcing Business).

In or around July 2024, the Respondent having noticed a downturn in requests for quotes in the previous years and a cessation for Project work and at the relevant time only had two live projects, the company made the decision that the business needed to change from a project-based business to a resourcing-based business in order to sustain and develop.

In order to make this transition to the resourcing business, the decision was made to make the remaining two roles (including the Complainant’s role) within the projects business redundant.

The Respondent met with the Complainant on 2nd August 2024 for the “at risk meeting” in which the Complainant was informed that the Respondent had seen a decline in the projects business, and as a result the decision was made to put the role of Layered Data Contracts Manager at risk of redundancy. The Respondent outlined the commercial difficulties and discussed multiple options that the Respondent was engaging in to produce revenue replacement in the projects business and discussed the redundancy process and the exploration of alternative roles.

Following the meeting, a letter was issued to the Complainant outlining the main points of discussion. The Respondent entered into a consultation period with the Complainant. Due to the Complainant suffering a bereavement, the consultation was delayed from beginning on 26th  August to 13th September.

The Respondent and the Complainant had a series of telephone and “Teams” calls on or about the 13th, 19th and 25th September respectively. During the calls the alternative roles were discussed, including on the 13th a production role that was offered, either as a permanent or short-term basis while other alternatives were explored but this offer was rejected by the Complainant. On 19th, three proposals of either permanent or short-term duration were rejected.

Following the consultation process, the Complainant and the Respondent met on 30th September 2024 and the Complainant was informed that as no suitable alternative employment could be agreed upon, the Complainant’s employment would be terminated by reason of redundancy, on 31st October 2024.

During the course of the notice period, the Complainant raised the issue that he believed the contractual notice period of his original contract of employment from 2016 was three months in duration. The Complainant was asked to produce a copy of the original contract but did not do so. However, it was submitted that the Respondent paid the Complainant, an ex-gratia payment of €17,1975.00, as a goodwill gesture, the equivalent of the remaining two months’ notice.

It is submitted that the Complainant’s employment ended on 31st October 2024, at which time the Complainant was paid all outstanding monies owed to him.

The Respondent submits that a genuine redundancy situation existed within the organisation, the Complainant was notified, entered into a consultation period whereby alternative positions were sought, offered and ultimately rejected by the Complainant. It submits that the dismissal was fair in line with section 7(2)(a) of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, as the Complainant’s role was genuinely redundant due to a decline in the projects business and the decline in the type of projects scoped enquiries the decision of the company was that the projects portion of the business was no longer viable and decided to cease carrying on that business.

The Respondent submits that at the conclusion of the process the Complainant was issued with four (4) weeks’ notice, and paid his statutory redundancy entitlement in full, complying will all the Respondent’s statutory obligations. The Complainant was paid €10,788.00, by way of statutory redundancy payment, which it is submitted is the correct calculation based on a start date of 9/5/2016 and an end date of 31/10/2024.

In respect of the complaint under the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973, the Respondent submits that the Complainant worked for the Respondent for 8.5 years, which entitled him to four (4) weeks’ statutory notice, which was also paid in full.

It was submitted, in respect of the claim for unfair dismissal, that the Respondent made a decision to pivot part of the business; and following a decision to make a move in the business, the Respondent contacted their HR provider and entered into a redundancy process. It is submitted that there were two (2) employees at risk of redundancy, the process started in early August 2024, then put on hold for personal reasons related to the Complainant (bereavement). It concluded on 31/09/2024. Three separate roles were put forward (alternative roles), a mix of interim and permanent options. It was submitted that the company’s position was that if the Complainant did not think the roles were suitable at the minute, they would find a place for him within the business. He said that it was the Respondent’s view based on the 2022 contract that the Complainant was entitled to 1 months’ notice. The Complainant’s original contract was from 2016, and the Complainant submitted that it contained a three months’ notice period. The Respondent couldn’t find the original contract. The Complainant’s role was made redundant on 31/10/2024 based on the one month notice period, and he was paid his statutory redundancy entitlement, on that basis. It was submitted that the redundancy was genuine, the process followed was fair and that the Complainant was paid in accordance with the Redundancy Payments Act. [Adjudication Officer’s Note: It has since been accepted that the Complainant was entitled to the three month notice period, based on the 2016 contract, and the employer has undertaken to pay the outstanding two months of notice pay; and also to apply the adjustment in length of service to take account of that, which has a knock-on effect in terms of the calculation of statutory redundancy pay, under the Redundancy Payments Act, which it has also undertaken to pay.]

Mr. Robert Ussher, MD took the oath and gave evidence on behalf of the Respondent company

The witness outlined that he worked for a company called Hanley Automation, a distributor of a product from an American company.

He said that there was a virtual PNL (business within a business), and it was getting lost within that business. So, ‘in 2022’, the Respondent ‘took steps to set that up on its own so we could perform without any perceived hindrance to the business.’

He outlined that the company dealt in automation products, for the Irish manufacturing and pharmaceutical industry mainly.

He said that the business was wholly owned by shareholders of Hanley Automation. He said that the purpose was to try to commercially pursue projects and monies from the blue chip manufacturing entities, predominately in the Irish market but not exclusively – some of those businesses have a multinational facet.

The Complainant was an employee of that business, which was moved from a virtual PNL to a separate entity. So, it could operate without any hindrance.

He said: ‘Once that happened, we started a process of pursuing a greater team of people.’ He described it as having ‘a spiky start, as you would expect with any start up’, there were ‘peaks and troughs’ and he said that those troughs became more evident in 2023.

He said there were ‘conversations’, ‘aspirations’, ‘Internal processes’, ‘re-worked teams’ and they let  one of the staff members go.

He said that business within a business, was ‘finding it very difficult to get to a situation where we had a regular income.’

He said: ‘There was a trough at the end of 2023. He said it ‘peaked slightly in January 2024.’ Then there was a ‘trough again in February, March, April 2024.’

He said it incurred significant losses in 2022, 2023 and 2024, despite trying a number of things both strategic and technical, ‘we were unable to keep the business going.’

He said that ‘the situation with the project business was that we really only had one active project – that was going to take longer than anticipated to complete (due to the customer’s timeline) and another project that had stalled.’

He said they had to find some way to source work/income or to make people redundant. He said that there were a number of considerable costs not least of which was insurance (to do work for those blue chip manufacturing company), and he said that there were ‘no active quotes’, ‘no business.’ He described it as a ‘very difficult situation within the business.’

He outlined that there were resources on site who were trying to ‘birddog’ (look out for) projects, that the company tried to redeploy the project team to pharmaceutical, manufacturing and life sciences customers.

He explained that the way that a project would work – people would look for external contractors, for example for new software to be implemented, or for example maybe a physical project to be worked upon. He said that: ‘In 2023, it became much harder to get those projects – because those projects needed to embed into the system (needed to be onsite).’

He explained that posed a number of different challenges, but that he did not think it would lead to a complete stymie-ing of quotes

He explained that previously, they would have worked on the software outside the premises, and then worked on it, onsite. However, now, those clients were looking for site resources – but from an insurance point of view, you can place the person onsite for an hourly rate and rely on the customer’s insurance, whereas with a project, ‘you have to make those decisions and deploy those resources.’

He said that it was ‘decided to move from a project based business to a resource based business’ (where those resources are deployed on site).

He said: ‘That was determined by the market not by us’ because there is ‘more profit in the project-based business, whereas there is a very fixed margin in a resource-based business.’

He said that ‘to have to close the project-based business was a very difficult decision.’ He explained that he was not required on a technical basis, but rather was needed to manage resources.

He said that the company ‘tried to find a number of different ways to ameliorate the process.’

He said that ‘from a management basis – they put in place a series of targets to meet. A Commercial budget.’ Then, they ‘made the decision that we could no longer be viable in the business.’ They had given it two to two-and-a-half years.

He said that ‘once the decision was made to close the project-based business, we approached Peninsula HR to see what steps we might have to take from there.’

He said that he was asked ‘to present a business case and to robustly defend it.’ He said that when he sat down to do it, he found it ‘cathartic’, that it was ‘very straightforward in some ways but very difficult in others.’ He said that he had to ‘present the facts and figures around it, notwithstanding that we had given it so many years of our lives and efforts’, in the business case.

He outlined that the Complainant was a Layered Data Contracts Manager, which was really a ‘very pivotal role.’

He explained that ‘without a contracts manager, someone to administer the project, you don’t have anyone you can make responsible.’ He said that in terms of ‘commercial proposal, timely integration, every part of the company’s professional being - that’s the role that Mike Reynolds was deployed to do – possibly not from 2016 but certainly from 2018/2019. When contract management became more of an automation contracts manager, as opposed to an individual contract resource.’

He said that the business at hand was becoming more difficult to take these smaller contracts out of these blue chip firms, as the software became more integrated within the client company, that they could no longer take a piece of work off site, trial it and test it and then have it integrate it back in as it had gone in the past; that companies were not looking to give those contracts [externally], that it was difficult to take individual pieces away.

He described the Complainant’s skillset as ‘enviable in many ways.’ He said that ‘the fact that he is a contracts manager means he has more experience of an individual site resource; that there was no reason why a contracts manager can’t be used or redeployed on site.’

He said that ‘when we furnished the business case to Peninsula, it was almost cathartic writing down for the first time all of the reasons why we could no longer proceed with a projects team.’ The decision was made to close the projects business and to proceed to have an at risk meeting with the contract manager.’ He described it as ‘a stark situation about pounds, schillings and pence.’

He said that the business ‘looked to reactivate projects that had fallen dormant in the previous months’ and ‘looked at ways to take on smaller projects that we didn’t think were commercially viable in the past.’

From a procedural perspective, he said that the tone was ‘very professional, what you would expect it would be’ and that ‘it covered a wide range of topics from an individual, technical, point of view.’

He outlined that at the consultation meeting on 13/09/2024, they had discussed a production support role in a [name redacted client company] to which he could be deployed.

He said that there had been consultation meetings that had been documented, that the irregular cadence of meetings in September was due to them trying to find anything suitable from Arklow to Kerry, to find ‘anywhere that we could justify to continue the continued employment of Mike.’

He said that they examined a number of options - short-term, closer to home, longer term, any commercially viable role. He said there were lots of calls between the Complainant and the MD ‘trying to find him anything.’

He said ‘the HR manager took the minutes of that particular meeting. [The Complainant] expressed a number of different concerns, some of them not without foundation.’

He addressed the issuing of new contracts in 2022. He said they had to re-introduce the re-brand - name (trading entity), business names, associated paperwork, contracts. He said it was ‘a completely stand-alone entity.’ He said contracts issued to all employees, notwithstanding their service. He said: ‘We weren’t re-designing their roles. Just creating a new entity, with all the energy and enthusiasm that would bring.’ He said that the contract states four (4) weeks. The three (3) months’ notice period is mentioned, it refers to the 2016 contract. He said: ‘I made a very wide range of steps to recover the Hanley Automation Team.’

In respect of the Complainant, he said that when he had started, he started on approximately €55,000, in 2016; and was earning €107,000 by the end of his employment. The 2022 contract contains some incorrect information and the document is not signed by Mr. Reynolds.

He said that the company had used ‘HR Locker’, which provided an audit trail, as to what people have seen or not seen. He said: ‘I don’t think anybody was invited to return a signed contract.’

He said, in respect of the three month notice period: ‘Even though we did not have proof of it, we did not doubt the veracity of it.’ He cited a letter of 31/10/2024, in that regard.

On Cross-examination, by the Complainant, Mr. Reynolds (litigant-in-person)

The Complainant asked the witness, in what way would you consider that I was not a founding member of the company? He identified himself (the Complainant), the MD and a third person as being the three key players. He put it to the witness that the company was based on his experience and contacts and ability to draw business at the time. The witness said the Complainant was a ‘product seller’ and an ‘employee.’ The Complainant’s view was strongly disputed. Some of the work he had done for the company and the travel he had done on its behalf was put to the witness, in support of his view that he was a ‘founder.’

The timeline of events was put to the witness. The Complainant expressed the view that if different approaches had been tried or things had been tried earlier, the outcome may have been different. He expressed the view that things were tried in the last couple of weeks. The witness said that the company had tried anything that it thought may work. The Complainant disputed the approach that had been taken and expressed the view that someone from the engineering team should have been involved.

In relation to the original employment contract, he said that he gave the company a screenshot of it. He submitted that it was the responsibly of the Respondent company to have a copy of the contract, that there was not a legal obligation on the employee to produce it.

He raised the issue of ongoing work/projects with the witness. The witness explained that one project had stalled, it was two years old, priced two year previously, and the customer was not in a position to proceed. He outlined that there was another piece of work which had ‘disappeared.’ The Complainant queried why he as the longest serving employee was made redundant first. He expressed the view that LIFO (last in first out) should have been applied.

Closing submission by the Respondent’s representative

There are three claims. The company must be able to show that there is a substantive reason for dismissal, that there was a genuine business case for making the pivot. The company made a decision to do such a thing, and under the Redundancy Payments Act, it is entitled to make that decision. The party with the vested interest in the company made the decision to transition the company from a project-based business to a resource-based business.

The company entered into a process. On 2/8/2024, it put his job at risk. Following his return after bereavement leave, it began having conversations with the Complainant in relation to redundancy.

On 30/09/2024, he was put on notice and on 31/10/2024, he was dismissed. He received the one month’s minimum notice to which he is statutorily entitled. He was fully paid his statutory minimum notice – 1 month’s notice. His notice should have run for the three months. There is an adjustment to be made there. There is an annual leave entitlement in relation to that also. He should have terminated on 31st December 2024, and he was not paid for that period.

It was submitted that the company accepted the fact that the Complainant believed that, but could he actually prove it. It was now accepted that the correct date in respect of service with regard to his termination date for the purpose of the Redundancy Payment Act was 31/12/2024; and there is a payment outstanding in respect of that. It was submitted that the company acted reasonably.

I gave the Respondent an opportunity to submit an email dated 1st October 2024 upon which it was relying, within a prescribed time-frame after the hearing. 

CA-00069676-001: Unfair Dismissal: The burden of proof is on the employer in a case for unfair dismissal. I must examine the dismissal both substantively and procedurally.  I find that a genuine redundancy situation arose in this case. There were two roles at risk, and ultimately both were made redundant, a number of months apart. That was for well-founded commercial reasons, which the Respondent has cogently and credibly outlined. The Respondent submitted, as part of its bundle of documents, the business case it made in July 2024, when considering both roles for redundancy, which it submitted to an external HR advisor at that time.

The redundancy process for the Complainant’s role was handled somewhat less formally than the subsequent redundancy process with the other employee but there was an initial at-risk meeting, and a number of consultation meetings once the Complainant returned to work following bereavement leave, and efforts made to identify and propose possible alternative roles. There is a lack of a paper trail, and the Complainant highlighted the fact that he was not given the minutes of the consultation meetings – what was submitted at hearing were the employer’s notes.

In terms of the potential options mooted, the Complainant raised concerns about those potential options. The employer acknowledged some of the concerns raised were not without foundation. Ultimately, when no other suitable role could be found, the Complainant’s role was made redundant.

I accept the points raised by the Complainant that he did not receive the minutes of those meetings and that he was not given a right of appeal with respect to his redundancy. The Complainant highlighted the contrast between the handling of his redundancy and the subsequent handling of the redundancy of his more junior counterpart.

I do not accept the view he expressed that LIFO (last in first out) should automatically have been the applicable criteria.

The Complainant also expressed the view that there was no matrix/criteria provided in respect of the roles to be made redundant.

In considering this case, I have considered the applicable legislation and also had regard to ADJ-00032606, and the body of caselaw cited therein.

I find that the dismissal was substantively fair, i.e. a genuine redundancy situation arose. From a procedural perspective, I find that the process was procedurally flawed and therefore that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed in line with the provisions of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977.

Mitigation

There is a duty for any employee unfairly dismissed to mitigate their losses. The clarification now provided on the notice period is relevant – the employer accepts the correct notice period brings the Complainant’s last day of employment up to 31st December 2024, which is of relevance in respect of mitigation. [There is also an adjustment to be made for outstanding annual leave.]

The Complainant found new work, albeit abroad, and on a temporary contractual basis (not permanent), which started less than a week after the newly corrected notice period had run, at a slightly higher rate of pay. The Complainant provided updated information on mitigation subsequent to the hearing of the case.

In terms of awarding compensation, the Adjudication Officer is to award an amount that is ‘just and equitable’ having regard to ‘all of the circumstances’ of the case, as per the applicable legislation, including financial loss, prospective financial loss, the conduct of the employer, the conduct of the employee etc. In this instance, it also includes prior receipt of statutory redundancy payment (albeit one which has to be adjusted slightly to allow for the corrected dates, as conceded by the employer). Any amount to be awarded is monetary and not temporal in nature. The maximum jurisdiction under the applicable legislation is two years’ remuneration (which includes all aspects of an employee’s compensation package, not simply salary). The Complainant’s salary at the time of his redundancy was €107,000.

I do not accept the Complainant’s understanding that he was a ‘founder.’ Rather, he was an employee, albeit a very senior one with expertise and contacts in his industry. Some of the disquiet he outlined at hearing centred on the idea that he had been shut out of decisions as to the strategic direction of the business, and that had he been included in that, his role would not have needed to have been made redundant. I am more persuaded by the Respondent’s evidence in this regard. I note that businesses are entitled to make commercial strategic decisions, and to re-structure, if required.

CA-00069676-002: The Complainant received his minimum statutory notice. However, the Respondent employer has conceded, at hearing, that the Complainant is owed two additional months of contractual notice pay, based on the 2016 contract, and has undertaken to pay those two months’ notice pay to the Complainant, on consent (along with a corresponding adjustment in his untaken outstanding annual leave based on his newly agreed date of termination). His three months’ notice period therefore runs from September 30th, 2024, until December 31st, 2024. For completeness, that has a knock-on impact on the length of his service, and the amount of his statutory redundancy, which is relevant for complaint CA-00069676-003. However, the complaint in relation to statutory notice pay is not well founded, as the Complainant received his full statutory notice pay, attributable to his length of service, which under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973, is four weeks for an employee who has more than five years’ service but less than ten years’ service.

CA-00069676-003: The Complainant received his statutory redundancy payment, as calculated until October 31st, 2024. However, the employer conceded, at hearing, that the Complainant’s now agreed correct length of service, runs until December 31st, 2024, and undertook to make the applicable correction and pay the Complainant the outstanding amount based on the newly corrected date.

CA-00069676-001: I find that a genuine redundancy situation arose. However, I find that the dismissal was procedurally unfair, and therefore that this complaint is well founded. I award €15,000 Nett, compensation, under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, for the reasons set out above, to be paid within 42 days of the date of this decision.

CA-00069676-002: The Complainant received his minimum statutory notice. Therefore, this complaint is not well founded. As set out above, however, the Respondent employer has conceded, at hearing, that the Complainant is owed two additional months of contractual notice pay, based on the 2016 contract (along with a corresponding adjustment for outstanding untaken annual leave) and has undertaken to pay those two months’ notice pay to the Complainant, on consent, making his correct date of dismissal by way of redundancy: December 31st, 2024.

CA-00069676-003: As I have found the Complainant, to have been unfairly dismissed, under CA-00069676-001, I cannot allow this appeal under the Redundancy Payment Acts 1967.

However, the Respondent employer conceded at hearing that there is an adjustment to be made due to the Complainant’s length of service now agreed to have run from 9th May 2016 until the corrected date December 31st, 2024 (and not October 31st, 2024, as per the Respondent’s previous calculation) and has undertaken to pay the Complainant the corrected amount, which is in the region of approximately €200, The Complainant received his statutory redundancy payment, as calculated until October 31st, 2024.

Redundancy; Unfair Dismissal; Minimum Notice Pay; Contractual Notice Pay;