Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Sandra Carr

Hubert Morris trading as Eureka House and Gardens

Representatives

Self-Represented

Self-Represented

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00069801-001

28/02/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00069801-002

28/02/2025

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

CA-00069801-003

28/02/2025

The Complainant commenced employment on 11th September 2021. The Complainant was a permanent, full-time member of staff, in receipt of an average weekly payment of approximately €350.  The Complainant’s employment terminated on the grounds of purported redundancy on 10th January 2025.

On 28th February 2025, the Complainant referred the present complaints to the Commission. Herein, she alleged that the Respondent dismissed her without recourse to any form of procedure or seeking her input regarding the purported redundancy. By response, the Respondent submitted that they were in a difficult financial position, and that a valid redundancy situation existed at the time of the Complainant’s termination. 

A hearing in relation to this matter was convened for, and finalised on, 2nd September 2025. This hearing was conducted by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. No technical issues were experienced during the hearing.

The Complainant gave evidence in support of her complaint, while a manager of the Respondent gave evidence in defence. All evidence was given under oath or examination and was opened to cross examination by the opposing side.

No issues as to my jurisdiction to hear the complaint were raised at any stage of the proceedings.

In evidence, the manager of the Respondent’s premises stated that the business had experienced a sustained period of financial loss prior to the Complainant’s termination. The manager testified that the Respondent was required to implement various cost saving measures and, as employment costs represented a significant portion of the business’s’ overheads, it was determined that downsizing and redundancies were necessary. Following a consultation with the owner of the business, the manager conducted an informal review of the employment contracts of the staff. In this regard, the manager acknowledged that the Complainant was a long-standing employee but stated her belief that the Complainant would encounter the least amount of difficulty in securing alternative employment in the near future.

The manager admitted that the Complainant was informed of this decision via a telephone call and conceded that no formal procedure was observed. Nonetheless, the Respondent maintained that a genuine redundancy situation existed due to the financial state of the business.

The Respondent further accepted that the Complainant was not provided with a statement of the terms of employment at the commencement of her employment.

In evidence, the Complainant stated that on Friday 10th January 2025, at approximately 16:30, she received a telephone call from her manager. In the course of this conversation, the manager informed the Complainant that the owner of the business had requested her dismissal that morning, citing financial losses and a lack of available hours. The Complainant was advised that her position had been made redundant and that the Respondent intended to downsize the workforce further. The Complainant was instructed not to attend work the following day, resulting in the immediate termination of her employment. Although the Complainant was informed that she would receive two weeks’ pay in lieu of notice and was advised to apply for social welfare, she contends that this dismissal was procedurally unfair. As a long serving member of staff, the Complainant maintains that she was entitled to a formal consultation process, advance notice, and the opportunity to have her views considered regarding the potential redundancy. The Complainant asserted that no such procedures were observed and that she was summarily dismissed via telephone call.

In addition to the foregoing, the Complainant stated that the Respondent failed to provide her with written terms of employment at the commencement of her employment.

Regarding the present case, the Complainant submitted that she was summarily dismissed during a telephone conversation with her manager. She stated in the course of this conversation she was informed that her position was redundant, and her termination was to take effect immediately. By response, the manager in question did not dispute this account. Nonetheless, she stated that the Respondent was in a precarious financial position and was obliged to implement cost saving measures, with redundancies being the only viable option.

In this regard, Section 6(1) of the Unfair Dismissals Acts provides that,

“…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 Acts expressly lists “redundancy” as a ground of dismissal which shall not be deemed to be unfair. In a situation whereby the Respondent can demonstrate that such a redundancy is substantively and procedurally fair, they may rely on the defence afforded by Section 6(4)C of the Act. In this regard, it should be noted that Section 6(6) of the Acts provides that the onus of proof in relation to the same lies with the Respondent.

Section 7(2) (as amended) of the Redundancy Payments Acts provides that,

“An employee who is dismissed shall be taken to be dismissed by reason of redundancy if for one or more reasons not related to the employee concerned the dismissal is attributable wholly or mainly to-

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 been doing before his dismissal) to be done by other employees or otherwise.”

In the matter of JVC Europe Ltd v Panisi [2011] IEHC 279, Charleton J stated that,

“It may be prudent and a mark of a genuine redundancy that alternatives to letting an employee go should be examined” and that “a fair selection procedure may indicate an honest approach to redundancy by an employer”.

In this regard, it is well established that when a potential redundancy arises, an employer is under an obligation to consult with the affected employee or employees. This process usually involves informing the employee in question that their position is at risk at redundancy and subsequently seeking their input regarding the circumstances giving rise to the situation and discussing any potential alternatives to same. In this present matter, it is accepted that no such consultation occurred. In this regard, it is common case that the Complainant was summarily dismissed and informed of the redundancy as a fait accompli, without engaging in any form of discussion or consultation.

While the evidence of the Respondent’s manager suggests that they considered the Complainant to be a capable worker who would likely secure alternative employment quickly, these intentions do not offset the procedural failings outlined above. In this regard, the dismissal of the Complainant, without any formal procedure or consultation, executed via a telephone call, is clearly unfair under the terms of the impleaded Act. Consequently, I find that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed, and her complaint succeeds.

In addition to the foregoing, as it is agreed that the Complainant did not receive a written statement of her terms of employment near the commencement of her tenure, this additional complaint is also deemed to be well-founded.

CA-00069801-001 Complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act

I find that the complaint is well founded.

Regarding redress, the Act permits an award of compensation no greater than the equivalent of four week’s remuneration. In circumstances whereby the Complainant did not receive a statement of any description in the course of her employment, I award her the sum of €1,400.00 in compensation.

CA-00069801-002 Complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act

In circumstances whereby the present complaint is a duplicate of that listed above, I find that the same is not well-founded.

CA-00069801-003 Complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act

I find that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed within the definition of the Act.

In relation to redress, Section 7(1) empowers me to order re-instatement, re-engagement or a payment of compensation to be made to a successful Complainant under the Act. Given that neither party wished for the employment relation to recommence, compensation is the most appropriate form of redress in this circumstance.

In calculating such compensation, regard must be had to the Complainant’s attempts to mitigate their losses. In evidence, the Complainant stated that she successfully secured alternative employment approximately eight weeks following her dismissal. Having regard to the foregoing, I award her the sum of €2,450 in compensation for the breach of the Act.

Redundancy, Procedure, Phone Call