ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference:  ADJ-00055994

Parties:

Complaint:

Date of Adjudication Hearing:  21/01/2026

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Gaye Cunningham

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.

Background:

The Complainant contends she was unfairly dismissed by way of unfair selection for redundancy

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant contends that she was unfairly dismissed.  She submits that although the Store in which she was employed closed, she could have been transferred to another branch in the same town.  She submits that 5 other employees were recruited to that Store and she was not given the opportunity to work there, even though she had a lot of experience and was commended by management for good performance.  She stated that her contract of employment contained flexibility, that she was not recruited solely for electrical goods sales, and that her sales were better than the employer contended.  For all these reasons, she was unfairly dismissed.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Complainant was made redundant from the Respondent company on 28 January 2025. The Complainant alleges that she was unfairly dismissed by reason of redundancy via the selection criteria that the Respondent used. The Complainant explains that she believes five other employees began work after her initial start date and that she has cross functional departmental experience.

With this, the Complainant believes that she was unfairly dismissed by reason of redundancy.  The fact is that the Store in which the other employees were hired is a separate store and was not the subject of closure.

The fact of dismissal is not in dispute. However, the Respondent refutes the claim that the Complainant was dismissed unfairly. The Respondent submits that the Complainant was dismissed by reason of a genuine redundancy which stemmed from the closure of one of their stores. A detailed selection matrix was used to determine the redundancy alongside a clear and thorough process. The Respondent has fully complied with its obligations under the Unfair Dismissal Act and rejects that there has been any breach of the Complainant’s rights under this legislation. The Respondent’s decision to select the Complainant’s role for redundancy was fair and appropriate and was based on objective criteria, having regard to all the circumstances and as provided for under statute. At all times, the Respondent followed fair procedures in terms of the redundancy process.

The Respondents is a large Irish family run retailer, with over 16 stores located across Ireland, employing over 700 employees. The Respondent operates both retail and electrical department stores throughout Ireland, with two of their stores located in Waterford. The Respondent operated two stores in the Dungarvan area, however, made the decision in 2024 to close the electrical store and redeploy the homeware section to the Main street store.

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 19 September 2019, in the role of sales assistant.  The Complainants role primarily involved the maintenance of and sales within, the Respondents electrical department store located in Dungarvan, Waterford.

In early September 2024, the Respondent, following a thorough review of business operations, made the decision to close the electrical store located in Dungarvan, Waterford and redeploy the Homeware department to the Main Street store in Waterford.

On 04 October 2024, Head of People and Culture Ms M and Interim Store Manager Ms C met with the employees employed within the Dungarvan store to inform them of this company change and that the Dungarvan store would close at the end of January 2025, following the withdrawal of electrical sales and the transfer of the homeware division to Main Street store. They further discussed the process in detail and informed employees that there may be potential redundancies following this. Ms. M explained that she would be available to meet with employees on Tuesday, October 08, to address any questions, allowing them time to process the information first.

Meetings were held and the Trade Union consulted, and a Matrix for redundancy selection agreed.  The redundancy package was agreed.  However, staff members would have to have 2 years service to avail of the redundancy payment, in accordance with the Redundancy legislation.

In the Complainant’s case she was met and was accompanied and was given a list of vacancies for which she could be considered.

A vacancy in the Waterford City store was discussed, however, the Complainant stated that this was not feasible for her as she did not drive, there was limited public transport and she had external life commitments, further noting the store was 48km away from Dungarvan.

On 05 December 2024, meetings were held with all affected employees, including the Complainant, to confirm the status of their employment. Subsequently, some staff members were redeployed to the Main Street location, while others received formal notification of redundancy.

The Complainant was formally notified of her redundancy on 05 December 2024. However, as she did not have the reckonable service, as agreed, she did not receive a statutory redundancy payment. The Complainant was provided with two months' notice with an employment termination date of 31 January 2025.

The Complainant was afforded the right to an appeal; however, she did not pursue this. Furthermore, the Complainant did not raise a grievance and following the notification of redundancy, she subsequently lodged a complaint with the WRC on 17 December 2024.

The Complainant alleges that she was unfairly dismissed from the Respondent company as she claims the selection criteria used to enact the redundancy was unfair. The Complainant explains in her WRC complaint form that she believes five other employees began work after her initial start date and that she has cross functional departmental experience. Speaking to the employees referenced - The Complainant has failed to mention that the employees she has addressed in her WRC complaint form, were hired into the Main Street store, well before any operational business decision was made to close the Dungarvan Store. Employees in the Main Street Store were not affected by the closure of the Dungarvan store and therefore not affected by the redundancies.

Furthermore, the fact of the dismissal is not in dispute, the Respondent did terminate the Complainants contract of employment, however, this was through a genuine redundancy process due to a store closure. The Respondent refutes the allegation that the dismissal was unfair and further disputes the alleged fact that they used an unfair selection criteria.

Section 6 (4) of the Unfair Dismissals Act states that:

(4) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, not to be an unfair dismissal, if it results wholly or mainly from one or more of the following:

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

(b) the conduct of the employee,

(c) the redundancy of the employee, and

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

With the Complainant alleging that she was unfairly selected for redundancy, the Respondent refutes this allegation in its entirety as the Complainant’s position was one of a number of redundancies that occurred. The Complainant along with three other employees were in roles that were made redundant. These roles have not been backfilled owing to the challenging climate the Respondent operates within. Further to this, as the homeware department was transferred to the main street store, no recruitment has occurred within that store since these redundancies occurred.

In the instant case, the Respondent relies on the fact that the reason for the redundancy was absolutely genuine and was due to the closure of one of their stores. The Respondent further wishes to highlight the selection criteria that was used to draw the conclusion of the Complainants redundancy. The Complainant, upon review, was found to possess limited experience in cross departmental areas, compared to her other colleagues who displayed regular cross departmental experience. The Complainant rarely covered absences in the homeware section within the store. Furthermore, the Complainant had the least amount of service compared to other colleagues. The Respondents has provided the till report for the Homeware section.  It can be clearly seen that the Complainants sales in the Homeware department amounted to 1.45% which is extremely minimal compared to other employees.

It is argued that the redundancy was genuine, the selection was carried out in a fair and transparent manner and the Respondent fulfilled its obligations under the Act.

Case law was submitted in support of the Respondent’s arguments on fair procedures and matrix for selection.

Findings and Conclusions:

Section 6 (4) of the Unfair Dismissals Act states that:

(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:

(c) the redundancy of the employee …

Section 7 (2) of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 provides:

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—

(a) the fact that his employer has ceased, or intends to cease, to carry on the business for the purposes of which the employee was employed by him, or has ceased or intends to cease, to carry on that business in the place where the employee was so employed, or

(b) the fact that the requirements of that business for employees to carry out work of a particular kind, or for 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.

In this case, the Respondent closed one of its stores and came to a redundancy agreement with the Trade Union.  Unfortunately, the Complainant was not eligible to avail of the redundancy agreement and was not eligible for statutory redundancy payment as she had not the required 2 years’ service.    

 In terms of deciding whether or not the Complainant was unfairly selected for redundancy, I am obliged to take cognisance of the provisions of the legislation. The contractual entitlement to a defined procedure in terms of the selection of candidates for redundancy is provided for in Section 6 (3) of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 which states that:

“Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, if an employee was dismissed due to redundancy but the circumstances constituting the redundancy applied equally to one or more other employees in similar employment with the same employer who have not been dismissed, and either—

(a) the selection of that employee for dismissal resulted wholly or mainly from one or more of the matters specified in subsection (2) of this section or another matter that would not be a ground justifying dismissal, or

(b) he was selected for dismissal in contravention of a procedure (being a procedure that has been agreed upon by or on behalf of the employer and by the employee or a trade union, or an excepted body under the Trade Union Acts 1941 and 1971, representing him or has been established by the custom and practice of the employment concerned) relating to redundancy and there were no special reasons justifying a departure from that procedure.

then the dismissal shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to be an unfair dismissal.”

I note the Respondent in this case came to an agreement with the Trade Union on the manner and effect of the proposed redundancies.   I find that the Respondent did not act contrary to the provisions of Section 6 (3) in terms of the manner in which the Complainant’s redundancy was effected.

However, notwithstanding the foregoing, in considering the fairness or otherwise of the Complainant’s selection for redundancy, I am also obliged to take cognisance of the provisions of Section 6 (7) of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 which 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, if 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 mission) of the employer in relation to the dismissal”.

This provision provides that the reasonableness of the employer’s conduct is an essential factor to be considered in the context of deciding on the fairness or otherwise of a dismissal and it places an obligation on an employer to act reasonably in taking a decision to dismiss an employee on the grounds of redundancy.  In this regard, I note that the Employment Appeals Tribunal held in the case of Gillian Free v Oxigen Environmental UD 206/2011, the Employment Appeals Tribunal held that:

“When an employer is making an employee redundant, while retaining other employees, the selection criteria being used should be objectively applied in a fair manner. While there are no hard and fast rules as to what constitutes the criteria to be adopted nevertheless the criteria adopted will come under close scrutiny if an employee claims that he/she was unfairly selected for redundancy. The employer must follow the agreed procedure when making the selection. Where there is no agreed procedure in relation to selection for redundancy, as in this case, then the employer must act fairly and reasonably.”

In this instant case, having regard to the totality of the evidence adduced, I find that the Respondent did act fairly and reasonably and did apply fair procedures in terms of the manner in which the Complainant was selected for redundancy. In coming to this conclusion, I have taken into consideration the fact that a matrix of selection for redundancies was drawn up by the Respondent, and it appears the Complainant’s position was not singled out for redundancy.

I find the complaint of unfair dismissal to be not well founded.

Decision:

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

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.

Based on the reasons and findings above, I have decided that the complaint is not well founded.

Dated:   27-02-2026

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Gaye Cunningham

Key Words: