Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Yuncong  Zou

Huawei Technologies (Ireland) Co., Limited Huawei

Complainant

Respondent

Representatives

Conor McCrave, Solicitor of  Setanta Solicitors

Seamus Collins BL - Respondent Legal Department and Company Managers

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-00072376-001

12/06/2025

The issue in contention was the alleged Unfair Dismissal of the Complainant, a Collaboration Manager, by the Respondent, an Information Technology & Services Multinational

The employment began on the 3rd July 2023 and ended on the 30th April 2025.

The rate of pay was stated by the Complainant to have been €7,083 per month for a 40-hour week.

The Complainant was represented by Mr McCrave of Setanta Solicitors. A detailed written submission was provided, and extensive Oral testimony was given.

In essence her case was that she had raised a Grievance concerning a colleague, Mr H, in February 2024. Following this she had been subjected to “Retaliatory” behaviours. She had raised this with her Team Director Mr S who had informed her that there was nothing he could do for her.

On the 5th of February 2025 the Complainant was invited to a meeting with Ms B, a Senior HR Manager, who informed her that she was being made Redundant. No selection matrix was provided nor was any consultation period allowed. She was offered a period of six weeks to secure an alternative role within the organisation. On the 25th February 2025 the Complainant asked to discuss her Performance Grade with Mr S, her Team Director. He replied that this was a moot exercise in view of “where she was”.

On the 31st of March, Ms B from HR, invited the Complainant to schedule a meeting to sort out Redundancy paperwork, time scales etc. The Complainant indicated that she needed to take Legal advice as to her situation. Around this time the first correspondence from Setanta Solicitors was received by the Respondent.

Ms Bell wrote to her on the 2nd April 2025 notifying that she was “At risk” of Redundancy and giving a consultation period until the 16th April 2025.

Mr McCrave pointed out that the “At risk” correspondence and the short “Consultation Period” were a belated attempt by Ms B (in view of the Setanta letter) to give a spurious façade of legality to an already clearly made decision.

During this time the Complainant had applied for a number of other positions in the Multinational and had advanced as far as the Reference checks with current Employers (the Respondent in this case), stage. This would be a precursor to possible job offers.  “Mysteriously” the well-advanced job offers had all come to naught following this. It was most unusual for an employee with a clear employment record.

On the 16th April 2025 the Complainant was informed that she was being made Redundant with effect from the 30th April 2025.

Mr McCrave argued strongly that there had been a negative Agenda against the Complainant since the February 2024 Grievance. The meeting of the 4th February 2025 had been a complete “fait accompli” with a clear message of Redundancy. No consultation was allowed and the efforts by Ms Bell of HR in early April (following the receipt of correspondence from Setanta Solicitors) were a blatant attempt to Legally “mend their hand” by a “gloss” of correspondence.

No Appeal was offered to the decision.

Mr McCrave exhibited detailed, in support, numerous case law precedents essentially stating that a purported Redundancy cannot be used as a dissimulation for an Unfair Dismissal. He alleged that this was the case here – it was, at the simplest, an Unfair Dismissal dressed up as a Redundancy.

Landmark cases in support referred to were St Ledger v Frontline Distributors Ltd [1995] ELR 160 & JVC Europe Ltd and Pansi [2011] IEHC 279. The issue of proper consultation was reference by Mulligan v J2 Global (Ireland) Ltd UD993/202009) and Production Line Lead v Employer Adj 24721 among a comprehensive list of cases referred to.

A detailed cross examination of the Respondent witnesses took place.

The Respondent was represented by Mr Collins BL, the in-House Legal Counsel, supported by a number of Management Witness principally Ms B and Mr S. A detailed Written Submission was submitted in support.

In essence the Respondent argued that the Complainant had been hired as a Collaboration Manager working primarily on Collaboration Projects with major Universities especially DCU. Her role was largely a high-level Administrative function to manager cooperation/ exchanges with the University Colleges.

In late 2024 the Organisation, a world leader in IT Systems, was moving on from the concept of close University Collaboration. The major reduction in the DCU relationship was symptomatic of this.

Mr S, the Team Leader, gave extensive Oral Testimony on this area. He was a persuasive witness who displayed no personal animus toward the Complainant. In late 2024 and early 2015 she simply had no remaining productive or business contributory positon. He had struggled to find work for her on a daily basis. His Budget for 2025 was closely argued by his Superiors. He no longer had the Departmental overhead to carry a Senior Administrator/ Manager such as the Complainant. Accordingly, a Redundancy was inevitable unless the Complainant could be absorbed into another Department.

Ms B, from HR, gave evidence of meeting he Complainant on the 5th February 2025 and effectively putting her on notice of a possible loss of her role.  The meeting was deliberately “Informal” and was a legitimate effort to give her as much opportunity as possible to secure another role within the Muti National Organisation either in Ireland or Overseas. Ther Complainant had spent most of February and March seeking and applying for other Respondent Group positions in the European network of Respondent Companies.

The April 2nd, 2025 “At risk” letter from Ms B was to simply formalise matters. No alternative positions had become available, and the Redundancy took effect from the 30th April 2025. It was a straightforward Economic / Business case Redundancy with no other associated background issues. Any suggestions of a carryover from the issues in early 2024 involving were completely unfounded.

In finality the Respondent had made a very good financial package available to the Complainant which in effect sustained her until had secured new employment in early July 2025. There was no effective financial loss to the Complainant from her Redundancy. In the event of an award this issue had to be addressed.

3:1      Legal Positon

Section 6(4) of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 is pertinent and is set out below.

Unfair dismissal.

6.—(4)

(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.

Redundancy is therefore a legitimate ground for a Dismissal. 

However, this position has to be treated with considerable Legal caution by all Parties. The issue of what are colloquially called “Sham” or dissimulated Redundancies has attracted significant Legal precedent cases.  These were listed extensively by the Complainant’s Representative, Mr McCrave.

Suffice to say that the proper procedural steps accepted as required by the Redundancy Payments Act ,1967 have to be scrupulously followed. These would be that the Employer has to fully consult the prospective Redundant employee and set out in detail the economic rationale for the Redundancy. Selection processes have to be carefully set out and objectively justified. The Redundancy has to be the justified loss of a positon of employment not any particular individual who may be occupying that position- in other word it has to be “Impersonal”. Alternative suggestions by the Employee have also to be carefully considered by eh Employer. Finally, the option of an Employee Appeal of the Redundancy Decision to a Person/Manager not involved at the early stages has to be offered. A fatal flaw for Employers in Unfair Dismissal case involving suggested Redundancies is the issue of an Employee being able to establish that the Redundancy decision was a “fait accompli” made before the Employee had an opportunity to contribute to the discussions. This would particularly apply in single person Redundancies.

However, all complaints rest on their own factual matrix and the evidence presented, both by Oral testimony and Written Submissions to an Adjudication.

3:2      Considertion of evidence presented.

Ms B, Senior Manager, for the Respondent gave Oral Testimony that she had informally met the Complainant on the 4th February 2025. She had told her that she was at major threat of being made Redundant. It was clear from the evidence that a Management Decision had already been made. The evidence from Mr S, the Line Manager gave the economic rationale for the decision – there was no longer work for a Coordinator with the Universities as this aspect of the business was no longer a factor for the Respondent. The clear message was that the economic rationale for the position was over, and the position holder had to be made redundant. Ms B presented as a very capable Manager with no obvious animus towards the Complainant. Indeed, her Oral Testimony suggested a genuine personal concern for the Complainant.

Two complicating factors were firstly the later recruitment of junior administrator/ executive assistant in the Respondent Office to carry out many duties that had previously been filled by the Complainant. Mr S had explained that the new Grade was two levels below the Grade of the Complainant and was clearly a junior office role. The roles were not in any way comparable.  Mr S presented as a very capable and responsible Manager who gave, in the view of the Adjudication, very objective evidence.

The second issue was the alleged “overhang” from the Complaint that the Complainant had lodged against Mr H in February 2024. It was also implied, albeit not so obliquely, by the Complainant that her failure to progress at the Reference /Current employer checks, for positions that she had been short listed for in other Division of the Multinational was certainly most unusual if not deliberately malign. The Respondent, Mr Collins and Ms B completely refuted these inferences. It was a straightforward economic redundancy and any suggestions to the contrary were simply misconceived.

3:3      Adjudication Conclusions

The Testimony from Mr S, the Line Manager, was crucial. There was a clearly a good economic basis for the Redundancy. However, it was a redundancy process that was effectively Managed, possibly over expeditiously, by Ms B from HR. Ms B, was genuinely anxious to give the Complainant as much scope as possible to secure other roles. However, the evidence demonstrated that the Redundancy decision was a “fait accompli”, taken before any input from the Complainant. In addition, there was no option offered of an Appeal from the final decision communicated on the 16th April 2025.

On purely Technical Grounds these factors would successfully ground an Unfair Dismissal complaint. This is the finding in this case. A Technical Unfair Dismissal took place.

However, in considering Redress Section 7 (1) (c) of the Act to be referenced. The Complainant secured new employment in early July 2025, less than 4 weeks from the final end of the Respondent position -notice pay having been paid for May and June 2025. The new position was at a salary that was approximately comparable. Allowing for Notice Pay and the Payment of the Annual Bonus (albeit not being fully eligible for under the rule of the Scheme) the economic loss to the Complainant was marginal if at all.

7

Redress for unfair dismissal.

7.—(1) Where an employee is dismissed and the dismissal is an unfair dismissal, the employee shall be entitled to redress consisting of whichever of the following F50[the adjudication officer or the Labour Court], as the case may be, considers appropriate having regard to all the circumstances:

(c) (ii) if the employee incurred no such financial loss, payment to the employee by the employer of such compensation (if any, but not exceeding in amount 4 weeks remuneration in respect of the employment from which he was dismissed calculated as aforesaid) as is just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances

Accordingly, a Redress has to be “Just and Equitable having regard to all the circumstances” and has to be within the four weeks provision.

Unfair Dismissal, Redundancy