Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Magdalena  Butan

Key Guard Security Li.

Representatives

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-00071292-001

04/05/2025

The Complainant was an employee of the Respondent security and facilities company in October 2023. In October 2024 the Complainant returned to work after a period of sick leave and was assigned to a new site as building manager. The Respondent lost the contract in January and the Complainant was terminated by reason of redundancy.

The Complainant attended the hearing and provided evidence under oath. She raised a number of issues related to her employment with the Respondent and believes she was targeted by a client employee for responding to bullying behaviour as well as an employee of the Respondent who she believed targeted her for discriminatory reasons.

The Respondent’s HR Manager, Ms Trish Wallace, attended the hearing and made oral and written submissions. The Respondent understands that they lost the contract due to the client and their tenants’ unhappiness with the Complainant’s performance and communication. The role they had for the Complainant no longer existed and they made her redundant. After the Complainant raised allegations the Respondent offered to investigate these under internal policies but the Complainant did not engage. They proceeded with an investigation even without the engagement of the Complainant and this revealed no evidence to suggest that anyone in their business behaved inappropriately or targeted the Complainant.

The Complainant submits that she was unfairly dismissed. The Respondent contends that the termination of employment arose by reason of redundancy following the loss of a client contract and a lack of alternative roles

Section 6(1) of the Unfair Dismissals Acts provides that a dismissal is deemed unfair unless there were substantial grounds justifying it. Where redundancy is relied upon, the Respondent must demonstrate both that a genuine redundancy situation existed and that reasonably thorough exercise was undertaken to avoid redundancy which includes consultation with the affected employee.

It is not in dispute that the Complainant was assigned to a client site and that the client subsequently ceased its contract with the Respondent in December 2024/January 2025.

The Respondent did not engage in any consultation with the Complainant, notify her that the role was at risk or consider alternatives to dismissal in discussion with the Complainant.

The Complainant’s evidence was that she was unaware that her role was at risk until she had been informed she was being made redundant. The Respondent’s evidence indicated that any engagement regarding alternative roles occurred primarily between HR and rostering functions rather than directly with the Complainant.

Accordingly, while I accept that the Respondent experienced a genuine business difficulty following the loss of the client contract, I find that the dismissal was procedurally flawed and therefore unfair within the meaning of the Act.

The Complainant also raised a number of allegations regarding workplace treatment, including interpersonal conflict on site and alleged inappropriate conduct by a manager. These matters were outlined in evidence but were not the operative reason for dismissal as presented by the Respondent. Given my finding that the dismissal arose in the context of a redundancy process that was procedurally deficient, it is not necessary to make findings on those matters particularly in the context of the limited financial loss identified below.

Redress

Compensation awarded under the UDA is limited to financial loss arising from the dismissal and is capped at two years’ renumeration. Section 7 of the act is clear on how awards should be determined and the High Court, per Mr. Justice Charleton in  Jvc Europe Ltd v Panisi [2011] IEHC 279, has outlined the process in some detail.

The first step of is to determine financial loss.

Before she was dismissed the Complainant earned €823 per week. At the time the Complainant was dismissed she was unfit for work and was granted illness benefit. She received illness benefit until obtained another job with comparable terms and conditions in November 2025. She was not able to work for the intervening period due to her health and as such the loss of income for that period was not loss arising from the dismissal.

7(c)(ii) of the UDA provides that where there is no financial loss compensation is limited to four weeks renumeration as is just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances.

I find that the complaint is well founded and I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant €3292.