Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Aleksandra  Surowiec

Dublin Letting & Management Ltd

Complainant

Respondent

Representatives

Robin Hyde of Alastair Purdy LLP

Stephen O’Sullivan BL briefed by Kent Carty Solicitors

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-00069392-001

19/02/2025

The issue in contention is a claim of Unfair Dismissal by a Financial Controller against a Letting and Management Agency. The employment began on the 1st February 2023 and ended on the 16th October 2024. The allegation made was that an unfair ending of Employment was disguised as an “elimination of a role” for Business Reasons. A claim for Redundancy was denied by the Respondent Employer.

The rate of pay was stated by the Complainant to have been €70K per annum with a possible €5K bonus.

The Complainant was Represented by Mr Hyde of Alaister Purdy, Solicitors. A substantial written submission was provided to supplement detailed Oral Testimony.

The essence of the Complainant’s case was that on the 12th September 2024 she attended a meeting with Ms K, Respondent HR Manger where she was told that her that her position was being “eliminated” as part of a review of the Dublin/London financial administration of the Respondent. Ms K confirmed this position in writing later that day. A follow up meeting was then arranged for the 17th September where the Complainant expressed great surprise and requested more detail of the decision/Position. These were not forthcoming in any detail. A further meeting with Ms K took place on the 18th September where the Complainant was pressurised to give a quick decision. As no options were available the Complainant felt severely pressurised to accept the situation. Ms K followed up the meeting with a brief letter confirming that the Complainant would physically leave the employment of the Respondent on the 20th September but paid notice until the 16th October 2024. No Appeal was offered to the Decision.

In later communications with Mr Purdy’s Office, on or about the 18th October 2024, the Respondent offered a Transfer to the London Office with no loss of Salary/benefits or a possible redeployment to another role in the Dublin Hotel Group but outside of Finance. Neither were acceptable to the Complainant as they were completely unsuitable and lacking in details, especially the Non finance role in Dublin. The suggested Transfer to London was a completely unreasonable suggestion.

Mr Hyde, for the Complainant extensively cross-examined Sweeney, a Director of the Respondent and Ms K the HR Manager. Mr Sweeney accepted that the restructuring decision had happen mid-Summer of 2024 as an “efficiency” measure. The bulk (approx. 80%) of the Revenue Stream of the Respondent was generated from their UK businesses. In this scenario it did not make sense to have an Irish based Finance function. Four (4) staff in Dublin were being let go. A small residual would remain but basically to do low level work and other Administration of the Irish businesses. Mr Sweeney admitted that the Group Finance Director, Ms MX, responsible for the complete UK/Ireland group of Companies would remain in Ireland. Mr Sweeney stated that the “elimination” of most of the Dublin Office was an “efficiency measure” only and not any personal reflection on the Complainant or other staff being let go. The Decision had been taken at Board level in Mid-Summer and was not realistically up for “rediscussing”. Ms K, from HR, had had no involvement in the decision and was basically carrying out the Directions of the Board.

No Appeal was offered as it would be without merit. In this context the October 2024 discussions & correspondence with Mr Purdy’s office could be seen as an Appeal process. Realistic offers had been made regarding a London Transfer and or a job in Dublin. Mr Hyde further queried the Corporate Structures/Networks of the Respondent.

In summary Mr Hyde concluded that the “elimination” was a complete sham process. All legal precedents (a large number presented in evidence as regards Redundancy were ignored

The Respondent was represented, most ably, by Mr S O’Sullivan BL supported by a number of Managers. A detailed written submission was relied upon.

In essence the case was that the Board of Directors had decided in mid-Summer 2024 to rationalise, for reasons of efficiency, the Irish/UK Finance operations. 80% of Group Revenue was mainland UK generated, and it made good business sense to have all the Finance function London based.

This involved “eliminating” 4 Dublin finance functions -the Complainant being the most senior. Additional staff were recruited in London to cater for the extra workload being moved from Dublin.

The Complainant did not have the required 2 Years’s service to qualify for Redundancy. All proper procedures were followed as regards notification and time for reflection. In later discussions with Mr Purdy’s Office, it was made clear that two other options could be made available to the Complainant, firstly, a transfer to London with no loss of pay or secondly a redeployment to another position, outside Finance, within the Dublin Operation. Neither proved acceptable and the Redundancy was implemented.

As regards an Appeal the Respondent took the view that the discussions with Mr Purdy’s office served as same.

Mr Hyde, for the Complainant, cross examined Mr Sweeney, Director and Ms King HR Manger regarding the entire process. Mr Sweeney confirmed that the decision was taken mid-Summer and it was never envisaged at Board level altering the outcome.

Mr Sullivan summarised the position as a straightforward Rationalisation, well allowed for in the Redundancy and Unfair Dismissal Acts. It was procedurally and substantively fair. As such there was no case to answer.

3:1       The Legal Position.

 The situation is provided for in the Unfair Dismissals Act,1977 and guided by the Redundancy Payments Act,1967. There is also a very substantial body of case law/legal precedent on this area. Mr Hyde, for the Complainant, extensively referenced multiple precedent cases.

In essence the Legal Position is that Dismissal for Redundancy or in this case “Elimination” of a Function is not prohibited per say but certain key factors have to be addressed. These would be that there can be No firm Employer decision on the issues prior to a full consultation with the Employee. The Employee can be informed, at an initial meeting, that they are “at risk of redundancy” and their view sought as to alternatives. The clear business rationale for any redundancy proposals has to be set out to the Employee. Reasonable time has to be allowed for the employee to consider the position and request additional information. At this stage a further final meeting with the Employee can take place and if all possible alternatives have been satisfactorily examined the Redundancy can be confirmed. An Independent Appeal, it is generally accepted, has then to be Offered.

The legal precedents quoted extensively by Mr Hyde illustrated that this is a detailed process for an Employer and short cuts are fatal to their case.

However, all cases rest on their own facts and evidence, both Oral testimony and written submission. These will be considered below.

3:2        Review of the Evidence presented.

Considerable reliance has to be placed on the Oral testimony from Mr Sweeney, Respondent Director and his cross examination by Mr Hyde for the Complainant. Mr Sweeney presented as a competent managerial witness.

In essence he made it clear to Mr Hyde that the “Elimination” decision had taken place well before the Complainant was informed or given an opportunity to make observations. Numerous case law precedents were cited by the Complainant’s Representative to highlight the Legal/employment Law difficulties of this Respondent position.

Ms K from HR, also in cross examination from Mr Hyde, accepted that she was tasked with carrying out an instruction (close the Dublin Finance Department) from her Superiors. She was sympathetic to the Complainant on a personal basis but there was little she could do. 

The letter from Ms K of HR dated the 18th September 2024 makes no mention of an Appeal. It was noted that the entire process took from the 12th to the 18th September - some 6 days. This was a remarkably fast process which was again referenced to numerous contrary case law Legal Precedents.

Legal precedents were again quoted as regards the offer of a Relocation to London. It was stated that this was a major physical and indeed psychological move for any Complainant. High Court and Labour Court cases have often hinged on transfers of locations within City suburbs, a few miles apart as opposed to a Dublin/London relocation.  The offer of an unspecified, probably non finance job, in the Dublin Hotel Group would not generally be accepted as a “genuine” offer to a senior Finance Staff member.

The suggestion that the Respondent correspondence with Mr Purdy’s office from the 7th October to the 8th November in October /November 2024 was an “Appeal” process would not be a commonly understood interpretation of an Appeal. No reference to an Independent Person was made. Again, extensive case law was cited by the Complainant Representative, Mr Hyde, to question this Respondent position.

3:2:1     Case Law cited by the Parties.

The Complainant Representative cited some twelve (12) precedent cases from Superior Courts, Labour Court, the former Employment Appeals Tribunal and latterly the Workplace Relations Commission. These were , Genuineness of Redundancy in Lyons V Grangemore  UD 541/2008 –, Procedural Fairness in Gillian Free v Oxigen Env- UD 206/2011 – Mulligan v J2 Global (Irl), Sherlock v Pluralsight Adj 449-[2024], Offers of Alternatives -Employer v Employee UD2124/2021 , Summeridge Ltd v Byrne RPD211[2012, ]Hanley V PBR Restaurants Adj 28355[2024], Time limits & Pre Determined Outcomes , Elliot V Legs Eleven Adj50223[2024] being the principal cases cited.

While all cases rest on their own evidence and factual matrix the cited cases were persuasive in the Complainants favour.

3:3    Adjudication Summary and Conclusions

To avoid any misunderstandings, Redundancy or in the language of this case “Role Elimination” situations happen daily. It is part of normal business life. However, Employment Law exists to provide safeguards to Employees. The principal issue is that of Transparency, Proper Consultation and Fairness generally resulting in a mutually agreed settlement. This is especially the case with positions of a high value especially, as is the case here.

The conclusion has to be that , while the business case was quite valid , the “Elimination” of the Complainant was a predetermined decision taken without any proper prior consultation , it was rushed at Complainant level, the alternatives offered were not really viable, and no independent Appeal was offered. The overall view of the Respondent approach is that the old Latin Phrase “Festina Lente” or “make haste slowly” might have led to a better outcome.

On these largely procedural grounds, all of which were grounded in strong Legal precedents, the Adjudication Decision has to be in favour of the Complainant.

.

Unfair Dismissal, Redundancy, Transfer of Functions Dublin/London