Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Tony  Donohoe

G.C Autos Limited trading as Kylemore Cars

Representatives

Louisa Meehan - HR

Stephen Clarke, Chief Operations Manager

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-00070669-001

08/04/2025

This hearing was conducted in person in the Workplace Relations Commission situate in Lansdowne Road, Dublin. In line with the Supreme Court decision in the constitutional case of Zalewski -v- An Adjudication Officer and the Workplace Relations Commission and Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 (delivered on the 6th of April 2021) the hearing was conducted in recognition of the fact that the proceedings constitute the administration of Justice. It was therefore open to members of the public to attend this hearing.

In line with the coming into effect of the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2021 on the 29th of July 2021, I can confirm that the witnesses herein were required to give their evidence on oath or affirmation. This was done in anticipation of the fact that there may have been a serious and direct conflict in evidence between the parties to the complaint. It is noted that the giving of false statement or evidence is an offence.

The specific details of the complaint are outlined in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which was received by the WRC on the 8th of April 2025.

At the completion of the hearing, I did take the time to carefully review all the oral evidence together with the written submissions made by the parties. I have noted the respective position of the parties.  I am not required to provide a line-by-line assessment of all the evidence and submissions that I have considered. Any matter not specifically addressed is deemed superfluous to the main findings.  I am guided by the reasoning in Faulkner v. The Minister for Industry and Commerce [1997] E.L.R. 107 where it was held that a

“…minute analysis or reasons are not required to be given by administrative tribunals...the duty on administrative tribunals to give reasons in their decisions is not a particularly onerous one.  Only broad reasons need be given…”. 

The Complainant was not represented and made his own case. When it came time to hear the Complainant’s evidence, the Complainant agreed to make an Affirmation to tell the truth. The Complainant provided certain supporting documents when he filed his complaint. Thereafter, the Complainant provided a full submission (with appendices)  on the 18th of March 2026. The Complainant additionally relied on the submission set out in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which read:

I am writing to formally submit a complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977–2015 regarding my recent dismissal from employment, which I believe was unfair and improperly carried out under the guise of redundancy.

I was employed by Kylemore Cars from 02.05.23 to 07.04.2025 in the role of Service Centre Manager.  I was made redundant on 07.04.25.

While I was informed that the reason for my dismissal was redundancy, I contend that this was either not a genuine redundancy situation or that the redundancy process was not conducted in a fair manner.  I believe I have been unfairly selected even though there is a staff member currently doing the job who joined the company only a few months ago.  This person also happens to be a friend of the owners.  I would appreciate your assistance with this matter.

Timeline of Events

27.11.24 – I received a letter inviting me to attend an investigation meeting on 04.12.24 concerning a complaint where I was accused of ‘Gross insubordination and Misconduct’ (copies of all correspondences are attached). The complaint consisted of an incident where I had forgotten to follow procedure by taking an image of a car key tag before the vehicle was sent offsite to a contractor’s premises. Unfortunately, this car was damaged on the contractor's premises through no fault of mine. I believe this was the beginning of a campaign to have me removed from my role by the Chief Operations Officer Steven Clarke. 

04.12.24 - At the investigation meeting I admitted to making an error in not taking a photo of the key tag in question.  I submitted my own report on the events that happened and explained I always followed company procedures and in fact had set some of them up myself. HR were in attendance which I feel was unwarranted.  Other members of staff had made similar mistakes but were not accused of gross misconduct and summoned to an investigation meeting.

Mid December 2024.  A new member of staff joined the Service team as Co-Head of Operations.  I was not informed that this person was being brought on board prior to their arrival.   This person’s name is Gerry Farrelly although I have no issue with Gerry as none of this is of his making.  Within a few weeks of Gerry starting, I began to be excluded from meetings/emails and the set-up of a new workshop premises which previously I would have been heavily involved with. 

17.01.25 I received a letter from Steven Clarke confirming the completion of the investigation process and stating there would be no disciplinary action made.  I felt I was singled out for this ‘investigation’ and that there was an ulterior motive for the way I was being treated.

Mid-January 2025.  I was moved to a new location in Rathcoole where cars were to be prepped for sale. Gerry took over my duties in the workshop.  After a short time, I requested senior management provide the tools and equipment in Rathcoole to be able to work on cars in the yard and get them ready for sale.  No equipment materialised and my requests went unanswered.

Early February 2025.  I was moved back to the Bluebell workshop and told to work on cars in the ‘sick bay’.  These are problematic cars that have been difficult to sort out/get ready for sale.  There were about 80 of these cars.  There are about 8 cars left on this list.  When I returned to Bluebell I was informed that all the staff now reported to Gerry now and my role was solely looking after sick bay cars.   

Over the last two months I have been excluded from meetings and emails to the extent I found myself with no work to do.  I sent emails to senior management with suggestions of other jobs that needed doing but my emails were ignored.  I mentioned to Steven Clarke on several occasions that I felt I was being sidelined and pushed out of the company, but he assured me this was not the case.

31.03.25.  I was called to a meeting with Steven Clarke where I was informed the company no longer required the role of Service Centre Manager and as such my role was at risk.  The reason the role was being ‘eliminated’ was that more work was going to be outsourced from the workshop due to continued labour shortages.  I was asked to suggest an alternative role/employment for myself and given a week to do so.  No members of HR were at this meeting.  I would like to point out that the quarterly company newsletter issued this week states that Kylemore Cars are looking forward to building out the new service department to prep more cars in house.  This disputes Steven Clarke’s own letter that the company is seeking to continue outsourcing this type of work.

03.04.25 I had a ‘consultation’ meeting with Steven Clarke where I voiced my objections to the elimination of my role and asked why another person was being kept on in that role even though I was with the company longer.

Gerry Farrelly was given the title of ‘Co-Head of Operations’ when he started last December.  However, the company website now lists his title as ‘Service Operations Manager’.  A very similar title to my own of ‘Service Manager’ and in fact the duties involved for these positions I believe are the same.  Steven Clarke has stated in his letter that I am mistaken, and Gerry performs a different role at a different level than I did.  I am not mistaken, and Gerry agrees with me on this despite what the company is saying.  Gerry has also apologised to me and said if he had known he was being brought in to replace me he would never have accepted the job.

07.04.25 I had a meeting with Steven Clarke and was informed my role was being made redundant.  I did not have to work my notice period of one week.  Again, no members of HR were present at this meeting. I was not given the opportunity to appeal the decision and there was no mention of this in the meeting. I was terminated immediate effect and told to hand the keys of the company vehicle back, another staff member was asked to drop me to my home. I have in writing from Graham Clarke the owner of Kylemore Cars that the company van is included in my package, and I should have had access to this for my agreed notice period which ends on the 14th of April.

If, as the company have claimed, there is no longer a need for a Service Manager role why wasn’t the person who is currently in my position put forward for redundancy as a ‘last in first out’ procedure. 

Grounds for Complaint

I believe the redundancy was unfair for the following reasons:

Lack of genuine redundancy – My role is still being carried out by the other employee. The workload remains the same and there is a legitimate business need for this role in the workshop.

Unfair selection process – The selection criteria of “role holder” as stated in Steven Clarke’s letter does not provide an adequate reason for my redundancy when I have been pushed out of my role and another employee is now holding my previous title. 

Lack of consultation – It is my understanding that the period of consultation for redundancy is 2 weeks. I was given one week.

Discriminatory treatment – I believe I was targeted as the company could not dismiss me on disciplinary reasons as, as stated in my redundancy letter, the termination was not related to my performance or ability to carry out my role at the company. The company has dismissed me under the guise of redundancy when my role very much still exists. As explained above I was excluded from communications that were necessary for me to carry out my role since the beginning of 2025. I was ignored by senior management when I requested additional work via email and in general conversation and also made suggestions to improve areas of the workshop/sales. I was relocated to a workshop where I did not have the necessary equipment to carry out my job and was put onto a project that took me away from my role while the company seemingly gave my role away to another employee. The actions stated above carried out by the company feel deliberate and have had an unfortunate impact on my mental health and wellbeing.

No objection was raised to any of the documentary materials relied upon by the Complainant in making his case. The evidence adduced by the Complainant was challenged as appropriate by the Respondent Representative.

The Complainant alleges that he was unfairly dismissed by way of an unfair redundancy process.

Where it also became necessary, I explained how the Adjudication process operated with particular emphasis on the burden of proof which had shifted to the Respondent pursuant to Statue.  

Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute. 

The Respondent entity was represented by its Chief Operation Officer and the HR Manager. The Respondent provided me with a written submission on the 19th of March 2025. An opening Statement was read into evidence on the hearing date, and I received a copy of that statement just after the hearing. I also heard from the two witnesses for the Respondent. No objection was raised in connection with any of the documentary evidence relied upon by the Respondent in the course of making its case. All evidence was heard following an Affirmation.

The Respondent rejects that there has been an unfair dismissal and contends that a genuine redundancy had arisen.

Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute.

I have carefully considered the evidence adduced in the course of this hearing.

As the burden of proof lay with the Respondent, I heard from the Respondent witnesses first. Mr. SC the Chief Operations Officer gave the primary evidence. He explained that the Respondent is in the business of re-conditioning and selling second hand cars from within the Irish market and /or imported cars from countries such as Japan. Mr. SC is a brother of the Managing Director and Founder of the Company. There are about 60 Employees working for the Respondent and at any given time there could be up to 1000 cars in stock

This witness started with the company after the Complainant. The Complainant was engaged as the Service Centre Manager in and around May of 2023 and was being paid at a rate of €60,000.00 per annum. SC only joined the Respondent as COO in and around July or August of 2024.

SC stated that when he arrived at Kylemore Cars, he identified that the Respondent company was outsourcing too much of its mechanical and re-conditioning work. There was an ongoing difficulty with the need to recruit and retain in-house mechanics, and the Respondent was forced to use sub-contractors to get cars ready for sale. There was a problem with the need to engage such expensive Contract work. Both SC and the Complainant agreed that (ideally) the Complainant as the Service centre Manager - was meant to be overseeing the work of up to six in-house mechanics, but when SC first came into the business there was only ever one or two directly engaged mechanics with the balance of the work being outsourced. As I understand it, the Complainant was (as per his intended role) overseeing all the work being done and there was absolutely no issue with the standard of work being carried out. The issue appears to have been how expensive it was given the reliance on third parties. The Complainant himself was very often “on tools” himself ensuring work got done. I note that the Complainant was extremely busy overseeing the workshop, crash repairs, mechanical repairs, after sale repairs and warranty repairs. It is common case that CS commented that the Complainant was like the Walkinstown Roundabout with everyone coming and going through him in all directions.

SC ultimately rolled out a programme to engage mechanics from abroad. In the end, this drive was successful as the company engaged up to six mechanics from Pakistan and Dubai. The process of acquiring this talent was quite involved and difficult as the proposed employees needed accommodation and visas. This was all procured as appropriate. These said Employees only materialised in the second half of 2025 and long after the Complainant had been terminated by way of redundancy.

The evidence lead by SC is that even before this aforementioned recruitment drive, he had engaged a company known as NVD to provide a comprehensive service preparing cars for the market. I note that (per its website) NVD’s Vehicle Preparation Centre is a fully operational facility offering a comprehensive range of vehicle preparation services including: repairs, resprays, vehicle upgrades, tow bar fitting, ply-lining and full PDI checks.

This was to be a huge operational change and undoubtedly was going to impact the Service Centre. SC gave evidence that he intended that the vehicle preparation work would ultimately be split between NVD and the six mechanics he planned on bringing in-house.

In and around this time the Complainant was asked to deal exclusively with cars that had been identified as needing particular attention and which had been consigned to an area known locally as the “sick bay”. The Complainant seemingly had no problem with being sent to deal with cars that needed more attention than normal as the said sick bay was full of valuable cars that simply needed extra work to get them ready for sale. It is common case that the Complainant hugely reduced the number of sick bay cars being carried by the company.

The Complainant has asked that I take into consideration the fact that in and around December of 2024 the Respondent brought a Mr. GF into the workplace. GF had, years previously, worked alongside the General Manager and was a long-term acquaintance and mentor. The Complainant has a lot of time for GF, but his evidence is that GF’s appointment ultimately brought about the Complainant’s termination. For example, it was shortly after GFs arrival that the Complainant was moved from his centrally based service centre out to the sick bay (which was housed in an altogether different premises). The Complainant has submitted that the title of Service Operations Manager given to GF is interchangeable with the Complainant’s own title of Service Centre Manager. The Complainant says that after his period in the sick bay he returned to his normal workplace and immediately became aware of the fact that his role had been reduced. In effect, the Complainant is making the case that he was purposefully sidelined for a period of time to allow GF get imbedded into what had heretofore been the Complainant’s role. The Complainant was told that GF had more experience and qualifications but states that he could not identify any marked difference between himself and GF.

On the 31st of March 2025, things came to a head when the Complainant was served with an “at risk letter”. The letter has been opened to me, and I have considered same carefully. The letter tends to suggest that the company intends that most, if not all, of its service requirements would henceforth be outsourced to a third party (presumably NVD).  The letter is absolutely silent on the plan to import staff into the country to carry out an in-house function even though preliminary visa grants had been given in respect of the first two potential employees (3rd of March per the Respondent statement). The letter tends to suggest that the Complainant will be one of many redundancies though I have seen no concrete evidence of other redundancies in and around this time. I do not count natural workplace attrition as a redundancy situation.  In fact, the only position intended to be made redundant (per this letter) is that of the Service Centre Manager. I fully accept that this letter came as a shock to the Complainant who was allowed one week to make a case for himself.

Not surprisingly the Complainant raised the spectre that GF should be made redundant as he was the more recent recruit and their jobs were on a par with one another. The Complainant asserted that up to four people were now carrying out the work he had been doing before getting sent away.

To some extent the Complainant threw himself at the mercy of the Employer stating in his reply letter on the 3rd of April 2025:

Regarding, the alternative proposal of employment. I would be open to discussion on this considering my extensive experience and dedication to the company. I would be open to working alongside GF ain the service department or alternatively as an After Sales Manager. As you know the service centre is incredibly busy and requires a lot of support..

Despite this plea, I have no sense that the Respondent gave any thought to considering retaining the Complainant in any capacity. CS (the COO) conceded in evidence that he had no idea what training, experience and qualifications the Complainant held. He has no idea how his skillset compared with that of GF. At the very least the Complainant was an excellent mechanic of the sort that CS had given explicit evidence it was hard to find and keep. I think it was inherently unfair that the Complainant was not advised that the company was also actively recruiting mechanics from abroad as the Complainant himself was a mechanic working in the workplace for the last two years albeit at management level. I cannot know if the Complainant would have taken a drop in salary at that time (if required to) but I do know that the Complainant (per evidence provided at the hearing) is currently working as a mechanic at a rate of remuneration commensurate with the rate of remuneration being given to the mechanics this Respondent brought from abroad.

I note that the HR Manager confirmed in her evidence that she did not see the Complainant as a mechanic and only as a Manager and only looked therefore at management roles for him. I cannot understand how there was not a file on the Employee setting out pertinent details as to his capabilities and skills.

It is clear that the Respondent did not want to maintain the Complainant in a management position moving forward. The Respondent produced an Organisational structure which had been prepared two months earlier (in late January 2025) and in circumstances where a cynical person might think that the Complainant had been relegated to a lower echelon in favour of the more recently recruited and more creatively titled GF. I understand that GF is currently managing the five mechanics engaged through work permits. This Organisational structure was referenced in the Respondent letter to the Complainant dated the 7th of April 2025 and wherein the Complainant was made redundant.

I have considerable sympathy for the Complainant who was unable to protect himself from a corporate decision that put no value in his service (however short). The Complainant was given one week between being put on risk and being made redundant, The final indignity came as Complainant had his company car taken from him on this day of the notice of redundancy. The Complainant was further invited to stay away from the workplace for his statutory notice period of one week.

The Complainant has also quite rightly pointed out that he was given no right to appeal the decision to make him redundant which, to my mind, automatically creates a procedural unfairness in the process.

On balance I am satisfied that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed. I do not accept that the Complainant ought to have been made redundant when he had a readily identifiable skillset required in this workplace. I am uneasy with the speed with which this dismissal was brought about against the backdrop of retaining another individual whose role then and now is suspiciously similar to the Complainant’s role of two years.

I note that the Complainant was out of work for 2.5 months and has obtained alternative employment at a rate of €45,000.00 per annum.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am finding that the investigation process carried out earlier in the timeline had no bearing on the actions taken by the Respondent.

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

CA-00070669-001  - I am satisfied that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed by way of a process of unfair selection for redundancy and I award compensation in the amount of €25,000.00