Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Patrick  Healy

Greyhound Express Ltd

Representatives

Sile Healy O' Mahony  Healy O' Mahony HR

 Self-Represented

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-00070181-001

22/03/2025

The Complainant, Mr Patrick Healy, was employed by the Respondent, Greyhound Express Freight Ltd., as a truck driver from February 2009 until October 2024 on a salary of €836 gross: €713 for a 40-hour week.

The Respondent submits that the Complainant’s role formed part of its transport function, which became financially unsustainable following the loss of a key client and a sustained decline in available work. It maintains that the Complainant’s position was therefore made redundant for genuine business reasons and that he was paid his statutory entitlements, including redundancy, notice, and accrued leave.

The Complainant does not dispute that his dismissal was presented as a redundancy arising from a lack of work. However, he contends that the redundancy process was fundamentally flawed. He submits that he was not subject to any meaningful consultation and he  was not afforded an opportunity to be considered for alternative roles. He submits he was informed of the decision in an abrupt and informal manner.

The Respondent’s Managing Director, Mr Kevin Sheehan, gave evidence that the Complainant was employed solely as a truck driver and did not perform duties outside that function. He stated that “Pat was employed as a dedicated truck driver” and that he “did not have any duties in the warehouse… [and] did not do any duties in the office.”

He explained that the Respondent’s core business was freight forwarding and that transport was only a supporting element. He said that, following the loss of a significant client in early 2024, there was no longer sufficient work to sustain the Complainant’s role. In that regard, he stated that the loss of the client “basically meant that we didn’t have… work for our truck or for a truck driver.”

The Respondent further gave evidence that the transport function had been operating at a loss, referring to weekly worksheets which demonstrated ongoing financial deficits. He stated that “every single one showed a loss” and that, in those circumstances, “it didn’t make sense to keep a truck and driver.”

In relation to the process, the Respondent accepted that there were no formal consultation meetings specifically in respect of redundancy. He confirmed that “there was no consultation with Pat” in that regard, although he maintained that there had been informal and ongoing discussions about the business position.

He confirmed that the Complainant was the only employee made redundant and that the decision related solely to the transport function. He further stated that the Complainant received his statutory redundancy entitlements together with notice pay and accrued holiday pay.

The Respondent placed reliance on correspondence from the Complainant following the termination, in which the Complainant stated that he would “agree to my redundancy based on the following,” which the Respondent contended amounted to acceptance of the redundancy situation. In his evidence, the Respondent outlined that following initial discussions regarding the termination of employment, he issued an email to the Complainant setting out the position. He stated that the Complainant responded with an email detailing the payments he believed were due to him. The Respondent indicated that he replied promptly confirming his agreement with those terms.

The Respondent’s evidence was that, arising from this exchange of correspondence, he understood that there was agreement between the parties not only as to the financial terms but also as to the redundancy itself. He maintained that the matter was concluded on that basis and that the agreed payments were subsequently implemented.

Under cross-examination, the Respondent accepted that alternatives to redundancy, including redeployment or retraining, had not been explored. He stated that “there was no discussion” in relation to such alternatives and maintained that the Complainant had not expressed an interest in office-based work.

The Respondent also accepted shortcomings in the manner in which the dismissal was communicated, acknowledging that he “probably should have had it in a private room.”

Notwithstanding these matters, the Respondent maintained that the decision to make the Complainant redundant was justified on financial grounds. He stated that “it’s not viable when you’re losing €40,000… it’s not viable to have a truck and a driver,” and that the redundancy arose from the necessity to ensure the ongoing viability of the business.

The Complainant, Mr Patrick Healy, gave evidence that he had been employed by the Respondent for approximately 16 years, having joined the business after transferring elements of his own transport business. He described a long-standing working relationship and stated that over the course of his employment he “just got on with it… whatever had to be done.”

He recalled that on 1 October 2024 he attended the Respondent’s premises prior to a hospital appointment and was informed of his redundancy in an informal manner. He stated that the Respondent “gave me my notice… at the warehouse door,” and that he was “in a state of shock” at the time, as he was focused on his medical situation.

The Complainant gave evidence that he had been dealing with a serious cancer diagnosis at the time of his dismissal and that this affected his ability to fully engage with the situation. He stated that his “mind… was more about the cancer rather than the redundancy.”

He further outlined that on 3 October 2024 he was presented with a redundancy calculation. He accepted that he reviewed the figure but took issue with aspects of the payment, in particular notice pay. He stated that when he queried this, he was told he would have to work his notice period, although this position was later altered and he was informed he would be paid in lieu.

The Complainant described returning company property shortly after his employment ended and stated that this marked the end of his engagement with the Respondent.

In relation to the Respondent’s financial justification, the Complainant disputed the accuracy of the worksheets relied upon. He stated that while losses were shown, they did not account for all work performed for the Respondent, asserting that “none of that work is on his worksheets.”

The Complainant further gave evidence that he had not been afforded any opportunity to remain in employment in an alternative capacity. He stated that he was “never given the opportunity” to be trained or considered for other roles within the business.

Under cross-examination, the Complainant accepted that the customer base he had originally brought into the business was no longer in place at the time of his redundancy. He also accepted that he did not have experience in office-based functions such as customs clearance.

He was questioned on an email sent following his dismissal in which he stated that he would “agree to my redundancy based on the following.” In response, he clarified that his agreement related to the financial terms rather than to the redundancy itself, stating that he was focused on his medical circumstances at the time.

The Complainant maintained that, notwithstanding the Respondent’s financial position, the process followed was inadequate. He stated that he had not been consulted, had not been offered alternatives such as reduced hours or different duties, and that the dismissal was handled in a manner he considered inappropriate given his length of service and personal circumstances.

While the Respondent asserts that this was a fair dismissal by reason of redundancy, the Complainant contends that the process adopted was unreasonable and that the dismissal was, in substance, unfair. I first have to determine whether there was a genuine redundancy and whether there was inherent unfairness in the redundancy process to justify a complaint of unfair dismissal.

Applicable Law.

Section 6(1) of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 provides that: -  

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.

Section 6(4)(c) of the 1977 Act provides that: -  

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 ... the redundancy of the employee...

Section 6(7) provides that: -

 Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, in determining if a dismissal is an unfair dismissal, regard may be had, the adjudication officer or the Labour Court, as the case may be, considers it appropriate to do so —

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

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

Section 7(2) of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967, as amended, provides in Section 7(2)(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 being doing before his dismissal) to be done by other employees or otherwise.

The fact of dismissal is not in dispute. The Respondent asserts that the dismissal arose by reason of redundancy, while the Complainant contends that the process was procedurally flawed and therefore unfair. The burden of proof accordingly rests on the Respondent to demonstrate that the dismissal was fair within the meaning of the Unfair Dismissals Acts.

Having carefully considered the evidence, I am satisfied that a genuine redundancy situation existed. The Respondent gave clear and consistent evidence that the transport function, in which the Complainant was solely engaged, had become financially unsustainable following the loss of a key client and ongoing operational losses. I accept that the Respondent no longer required a full-time truck driver and that the Complainant’s role ceased to exist for bona fide economic reasons.

I further accept that the Complainant was the only employee engaged in that function and that there were no directly comparable roles within the business. This was therefore a stand-alone redundancy.

In considering the procedural aspects, I accept that there were deficiencies. There was no formal consultation process and  no structured redundancy procedure.  The manner in which the decision was communicated was less than satisfactory. The Respondent accepted that the matter ought to have been addressed more appropriately, including in a private setting. I also note that the Complainant was dealing with significant personal health issues at the time.

However, I must assess whether such deficiencies render the dismissal unfair in all the circumstances. In this regard, I note that the Respondent is a small enterprise without a dedicated HR function and operating from a limited workspace. While this does not negate the obligation to follow fair procedures, it provides context for the absence of a formalised process.

More significantly, I am satisfied that consultation would not have altered the outcome. The evidence establishes that there was no viable alternative role available. The Complainant accepted that he had no experience in office-based functions, and the Respondent gave credible evidence that any such transition would have required extensive retraining and was not feasible in the context of a small business already experiencing financial losses. There were no other driving roles available. In those circumstances, any consultation process would have been unlikely to produce a different outcome.

A further and compelling factor arises from the Complainant’s own conduct at the time of the dismissal. The Complainant expressly stated in writing that he would “agree to my redundancy based on the following.” This agreement was not made in isolation. The evidence establishes that the terms were formulated with the assistance of a HR consultant acting on behalf of the Complainant and included detailed provisions relating to the statutory redundancy sum, accrued holiday pay, expenses, and an eight-week notice period together with an agreement that he would not be required to work that period. These terms were drafted and advanced on the Complainant’s behalf and were subsequently accepted and implemented. Monies were paid over.

In those circumstances, I am satisfied that the Complainant entered into a clear and informed agreement as to both the fact and the terms of the redundancy. The suggestion advanced at hearing that this agreement related only to the financial calculation is not consistent with either the wording used or the surrounding context, including the involvement of a HR professional and the structured nature of the agreed terms.

Taking all of the foregoing into account, I find that the dismissal arose from a genuine redundancy situation grounded in the economic circumstances of the Respondent’s business. While there were procedural shortcomings, I am not satisfied that these are sufficient to render the dismissal unfair in circumstances where (i) the redundancy was genuine, (ii) there were no suitable alternative roles, (iii) consultation would have been unlikely to change the outcome, and (iv) the Complainant, with the benefit of professional advice, agreed to the redundancy and its terms.

For all the above reasons I find that the Complainant was not unfairly dismissed by way of redundancy.

For the reasons outlined above, I find the Complainant was not unfairly dismissed.

Unfair Dismissal. Redundancy.