Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

An Employer

Representatives

Self-represented

HR Manager

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969

IR - SC - 00003404

11/11/2024

The Worker’s employment as a Quantity Surveyor with the respondent was terminated on grounds of redundancy on 25 May 2025 following an extended probationary period. 

The Worker had no advance warning that his role was at risk prior to a meeting on 20 May 2024.

The Worker submitted that he had been unfairly dismissed. 

The Worker’s remuneration in employment with the Employer was €55,000.00 gross per annum.

The Worker submitted that he had been unfairly dismissed by reason of an unfair redundancy without warning or legitimate reasons. 

The Worker was blindsided going into a meeting on 20 May 2024 which he believed was a meeting about his contract of employment, which the Worker had been requesting be put in place since completion of his probation period.  The Worker had a gut feeling about the meeting and would have appreciated the decency of being notified of its purpose in advance.  The Worker had no choice but to sign a document accepting the Employer’s decision to make the role redundant to ensure that he was paid in the May payroll.  The Worker was locked out of his laptop and emails after the meeting of 20 May 2024 and afforded a 1-week notice of termination period which the Worker was not required to work.

The Employer has recruited to various positions following the termination of the Worker’s employment therefore it does not make sense that the Worker’s role was not commercially viable.   On the date the Worker was informed of redundancy, the Employer was in the process of inducting a new project manager.  

The Worker secured alternative employment on 10 June 2024 and has remained in that employment.  The Worker has greater responsibility in his current employment and enjoys a better salary than that which he had with the Employer.  The Worker holds no animosity towards the team in the region but pursues this dispute because he felt the Employer should be held accountable.

The Worker was employed in the role of Quantity Surveyor with a base location in the Mid-West from June 2023 to 28 May 2024. 

A commercial decision was taken to make the Worker’s role redundant due to insufficient work to sustain the full-time role in the region. The Employer wrote to the Worker in relation to his contract of employment as Quantity Surveyor on 17 May 2024.  In that letter, it advised of its review of strategy of the region and of a meeting scheduled for 20 May to outline the Employer’s decision in relation to the Worker’s contract and continuation of same.

The meeting of 20 May 2024 was to make the Worker aware of the Employer’s intention to make the Worker’s role redundant.  The criteria used to select the complainant’s role for redundancy were discussed with the Worker. A letter of notification issued to the Worker at this meeting which informed the Worker of the Employer’s decision to make his role redundant as it was not commercially viable to retain the role in the region.  The Worker was not required to work during the notice period to afford him time to apply for alternative work and to enable him to come to terms with the termination of his employment.   

The Employer had employed the Worker with a view to growing business in the region however the business did not grow as forecasted and remains an issue. The Worker’s role in the region has not been replaced and restructuring efforts in the region have continued to stabilise performance.  The work in the region is supported by Dublin and works value in the region does not justify a permanent regional resource currently. 

The Worker’s contract of employment provided for termination where there is insufficient work.  

The Worker did not avail of an opportunity to appeal the redundancy decision at local level.

The Employer did not bear the Worker any animosity and encouraged him to reach out regarding future employment opportunities. 

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

At the hearing I explained to the parties that this dispute referral under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 does not involve the determination of legal rights. 

The Worker entered a contract of employment with the Employer in July 2023.  The said contract was a permanent contract or contract of indefinite duration that contained a probationary period.  The contract reserved to the Employer the right to terminate employment where there is insufficient work or for some other reason.   The Worker successfully completed the probationary period determined by the Employer.

The Employer reviewed business requirements and determined that it was not commercially viable to maintain the role of Quantity Surveyor in the region as there was not enough work to sustain the full-time role.   Given that the Worker was the only Quantity Surveyor employed in the region, it is unclear to me why the respondent applied criteria in reaching the decision to make the role redundant.  Notwithstanding, taking account of the Employer’s explanation of its restructuring in the region and the personnel recruited following the termination of the Worker’s employment, I am satisfied that the Worker’s employment terminated by reason of redundancy in circumstances where the business requirements for a full-time Quantity Surveyor in the region had ceased or diminished.

A non-voluntary termination of employment will invariably be difficult.  The information provided by the Worker of his personal circumstances illustrated the significant stress and impact that a loss of livelihood has.  

The sense of unfairness on the part of the Worker, and his shock and upset at the situation, may have been alleviated somewhat had the Employer notified the Worker of its review of resourcing in the region and the risk to his role. 

The Worker was not aware of the Employer’s review of strategy in the region which I note commenced in or around April 2024, the Employer’s review of selection criteria, or that his role was at risk of redundancy.  At a meeting on 20 May 2024, the Employer informed the Worker of its decision to make the role redundant.   It is this aspect of the Employer’s process or conduct in relation to the termination of the Worker’s employment that I consider unfair.  For completeness, I do not attach any weight to the Worker signing at the 20 May meeting a document expressing his agreement, understanding and acceptance of the Employer’s decision to make the role of Quantity Surveyor in the region redundant in circumstances where redundancy was raised for the first time in the same meeting, and the Worker attended the meeting on his own.

Having regard to the fact that the Worker was fortunate in obtaining alternative employment relatively quickly, I recommend the Employer, as a gesture of goodwill and in resolution of the dispute, pay to the Worker the sum of €1,500.00.

Industrial relations – Unfair dismissal – Redundancy