Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Donna  Ash

Skerries Golf Club

Representatives

Kristin Douglas B.L. instructed by  Dermot McNamara & Company Solicitors

 Donnacha Neary, Hon Sec

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-00070074-001

19/03/2025

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

The complainant undertook to give her evidence under affirmation.  Both witnesses for the respondent ultimately undertook to give their evidence under affirmation too.  Cross examination was facilitated.

At the completion of the hearing, I took the time to review all the oral evidence together with the written submissions made by the parties. The respective positions of the parties are noted, and a broad outline of the evidence and cross examination is provided.  I am not required to provide a line-by-line assessment of the evidence and submissions that I have rejected or deemed superfluous to the main findings.  I am guided by the reasoning in Faulkner v. The Minister for Industry and Commerce [1997] E.L.R. 107 where it was held that a

“…minute analysis or reasons are not required to be given by administrative tribunals...the duty on administrative tribunals to give reasons in their decisions is not a particularly onerous one.  Only broad reasons need be given…”.

The Honorary secretary speaking for the respondent stated that this case was a genuine redundancy situation. The club had identified cost-saving measures in the outsourcing of the cleaning function for the Golf Club. They followed procedures and alternatives were considered but the alternatives were discounted. The honorary secretary stated that all documentation was provided to the complainant, and consultation did take place although it noted that there was a limited window for such consultation. The honorary secretary stated that any inadequate procedural issues that arose were small and did not undermine the genuineness of the redundancy process.

The honorary secretary gave no evidence other than his opening statement but answered subsequent cross examination on the basis of that statement.

The witness noted that a review of finances was undertaken in August but confirmed that no minutes of the meeting were kept. However, that overview identified that outsourcing the cleaning facility would show savings of €7500 to the respondent. This opinion was formed on the basis of cleaning rates for advertised services that were within that knowledge of the witness and other members of the finance review working group. The witness was asked whether he was aware of previous complaints about the level of service being provided in relation to the cleaning and he confirmed that he was. However, he noted that the standard of cleanliness did not play any role in the redundancy process.  It was put to him that somebody in one of the WhatsApp groups noted that there should be more accountability on standards of cleanliness.  He confirmed this.  It was put to him that work performance was an issue, but he denied that saying that the redundancy process arose from the finance review only and was not triggered as a result of a performance issue.

Given the time that had elapsed between the date of redundancy and the date of the hearing the witness was asked what the cost savings were and he confirmed that there was a saving of approximately €13,000 to the respondent by outsourcing the cleaning services in the financial year up to October 2025 over the financial year up to October 2024.

The witness gave information about the various different meetings that took place but confirmed that he had not met the complainant in person. He confirmed that the complainant was not provided with an opportunity to put forward options or to input into possible cost savings. However, he confirmed that she was offered the right to have representation at the meetings. The witness confirmed that in to move ahead with the redundancy and outsource the cleaning function was made between 18 and 27 September 2024 and the decision was conveyed to the complainant following an operational and financial review. He noted that at the meeting of 27 September no matters or questions arose except for seeking reasons for the redundancy, he tried to explain these as best he could.

The witness was asked as to what other alternative positions were considered, and he noted that both the administration and finance positions were considered but it was noted that qualifications were needed for both of those. Green keeping roles required knowledge and experience. All of these roles were considered but given the nature of the roles and the skills and qualifications needed for various roads they were all discounted as possible options for the cleaning staff.

The option of reducing the number of cleaning staff was also considered however in order to achieve the same amount of savings the cleaning hours would have had to be cut in half which would not have permitted the same level of cleaning as offered by the outsourced providers.

The witness confirmed that the complainant was not offered an option to appeal this decision.

The second witness for the respondent was the HR advisor. His role was to advise on human resource matters, and he was not a decision maker. He was approached when the respondent was considering outsourcing the cleaning roles. He asked why they were considering this and was told that it was from a cost saving perspective. He was satisfied that the process was adequate.

Under cross examination he stated that he received a telephone call from respondent regarding the redundancy option but couldn't remember when exactly. He confirmed that business was normally conducted with the respondent over the phone. He confirmed that he didn't discuss alternative roles but said that his advice was that alternatives had to be explored as part of the process.

In closing submissions, the respondent submitted that this was a genuine redundancy made as a structural business decision to reduce costs. Two roles were made redundant and no replacements were hired. The in-house cleaning function was removed. A procedure was followed there was a consultation, but the window was short given the need to save costs. The respondent confirmed that this was neither personal nor a performance related issue and was wholly by reason of redundancy. The respondents suggested that any shortcomings in the process were not such as to undermine the genuineness of the redundancy.

The complainant submitted that she was unfairly dismissed by way of redundancy. She noted that she was not offered another role in order to keep her working within the company.

The complainant was working with the respondent as a cleaner for 16 hours per week. It is her case that she has been unfairly dismissed by the respondent by way of a sham redundancy and the invocation of an unfair process. The complainant noted that the onus is on the respondent to prove that the termination of the complainant's employment was fair and it submitted that the respondent was not capable of proving a fair dismissal.

The complainant submitted that she had previously sustained an injury in the workplace in February 2024 and was out of work for a number of weeks up to the end of March 2024. She stated that during this time she was paid. When she was out on sick leave, she received a number of complaints from the respondents’ servants and or agents. She submitted that a Golf Club member sent a WhatsApp message threatening to get new cleaners if the complainant did not improve her standard of cleaning.  The complainant submitted that it was suggested to her that she work a split shift cleaning two hours in the morning and two hours in the evening so that there would be continuous cleaning throughout the day.

In September 2024 the complainant and her work colleagues were asked confirmed their availability to attend an ‘at-risk’ meeting to discuss their roles with the respondent. The complainant met with the honorary secretary and asked if her job was at risk and she was told that it was. When she asked why, she was informed that there was a meeting to finalise job roles taking place with the committee. The complainant submitted that she was not given any meaningful opportunity to engage with the respondent as the meeting lasted less than 5 minutes, nor was she provided with the rationale behind the proposals or evidence for them. She submitted that no alternatives were considered such as working reduced hours on a more efficient rota nor was there any meaningful consultation process.

The complainant submitted that on 27 September 2024 a week after the ‘at-risk’ meeting both herself and her cleaning colleague were informed that the redundancy process had concluded and that their roles were being made redundant.  The complainant’s employment ceased on 25 October 2024.

On 8 November 2024 the complainant solicitors wrote to the respondents seeking reasons justifying the dismissal decision to make the complainant redundant. An answer was subsequently received indicating that the decision to make the cleaner role redundant followed an operational cost review by the club's finance team, conducted in preparation for the new financial year starting in October 2024. It went on to indicate that the review determined that outsourcing the cleaning services including supplies to a third-party supplier would yield significant cost savings to the respondent.

The complainant disputed the content of the respondent’s letter including timelines that they had set out. The complainant submitted that the ‘at-risk’ meeting did not indicate the reality of the situation in circumstances where the decision to terminate her employment had already been made and there was no genuine redundancy consultation. The complainant submitted that at no point was she given an opportunity to make alternative proposals. The complainant submitted that there was no documentation predating the ‘at-risk’ meeting which would indicate that consideration was given to alternatives to redundancy.

The complainant submitted that the redundancy process was conducted with unnecessary haste, was a fait accompli, and was wholly unfair. The complainant submitted that the respondent intentionally withheld pertinent information relating to the redundancy process and simply refused to engage with the complainant’s genuine attempt to avoid the termination of her employment.

The complainant submitted that she was unfairly dismissed from her employment and that the most appropriate redress is reinstatement. As regards the losses of the complainant she was certified unfit to work from 5 November 2024 until 6 September 2025 but commenced searching for a new position in July 2025 seeking to mitigate her loss. The complainants’ total losses to date amount to 19 weeks earnings totalling €3657.12.

Oral Evidence:

The complainant gave her evidence stating that she started working with the respondent in 2018. She confirmed that she worked 16 hours per week and that there was at least one other cleaner working 12 hours per week. She confirmed that she had been out of work for an accident for six weeks and that there was no communication with the respondent during that time. She stated that there were complaints received that the work had not been done properly. She stated that one of the club members had suggested that she do two hours in the morning and two hours in the evening to provide cleaning services throughout the day. She confirmed that she normally came into work from 8 in the morning until 12 and said that no complaints had been received over the first six years, only starting in the last year that she had worked for the respondent.

She stated that the first meeting, the at risk meeting it was explained to her that she would made redundant and when she asked why she was told “overheads”. She said she was quite shocked at this and noted that the meeting was quite brief. In the second meeting she was made redundant and given the reason once again was that of overheads. She was not asked if she could reduce hours. She asked if it could be explained to her in writing why she was made redundant and the respondent confirmed that it would do. She stated that her solicitor sought those reasons in its letter on the 8th of November. She stated that the respondent could have been fairer with her.

As regards mitigation of loss she confirmed that she was off sick until September 2025 from early November 2024. She stated that she started searching for work in 2025 sometime before September. She stated that she made more job applications on various websites and that she spent four to five hours per day looking for work. She confirmed that she has not found a job.

Under cross examination she confirmed that she had two house cleaning roles had various stages, but both were part-time, she confirmed that both cleaning staff members were made redundant and that no new staff were hired by the respondent to fill the roles, her understanding was that the cleaning function was outsourced.

It was put to her that there was an ‘at-risk’ meeting, and she confirmed that there was and that there was a further meeting and it was put to her that she was asked if she wanted to raise any concerns, but she stated that she wasn't asked. She also stated that she was not told that she could bring a representative with her.

When asked did she propose any other options she said no that the decision had already been made. She was asked what the roles were that she thought she could do given that the only roles within the respondents employment were administration and finance or greens-keeping. She did not reply.

The complainant confirmed that she began applying for roles in July making 13 applications up to November.

Closing Arguments:

The complainant stated that this was a sham redundancy and was based on performance. One of the benefits derived by the respondent was more accountability for standards of cleaning. It was submitted that there was an almost complete absence of fair procedures in relation to this and therefore the dismissal amounted to an unfair dismissal.

The complainant submitted that she was unfairly dismissed by way of a sham redundancy.  The respondent submitted that the complainant was made redundant and submitted documentation showing that it had benefitted from a large cost-saving from outsourcing its cleaning function.

Section 7(2) of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 outlines the following:

For the purposes of subsection (1), 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—

(a) the fact that his employer has ceased, or intends to cease, to carry on the business for the purposes of which the employee was employed by him, or has ceased or intends to cease, to carry on that business in the place where the employee was so employed, or

(b) the fact that the requirements of that business for employees to carry out work of a particular kind in the place where he was so employed have ceased or diminished or are expected to cease or diminish, or

(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, or

(d) the fact that his employer has decided that the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) should henceforward be done in a different manner for which the employee is not sufficiently qualified or trained, or

(e) the fact that his employer has decided that the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) should henceforward be done by a person who is also capable of doing other work for which the employee is not sufficiently qualified or trained,

Section 6(1) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 states that

Subject to the provisions of this section, 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) of that Act states that

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.

Oral evidence was given by two witnesses for the respondent and from the complainant.  The first witness for the respondent initially tried to give his evidence under oath using his work diary in place of a Bible.  This was noted and ultimately, he gave his evidence under affirmation.  This undermined the credibility of his subsequent evidence to a certain degree.  However, in his evidence he stated that records of various meeting were not kept.  Given that the position he holds with the respondent, together with other board members, are voluntary, the lack of note-taking is understandable although not desirable. 

Notwithstanding the lack of written corroboration, evidence from the certified accounts was presented and although the exact saving from the outsourcing of the cleaning function is debatable, what is clear from the accounts is that there was a sizable saving to the respondent from outsourcing the cleaning function, perhaps amounting to as much as 50% of the costs.  Therefore, I find that the redundancy was not a sham as the documentary evidence supports the logic of the respondent put forward as the reason for the redundancy – cost savings. Accordingly, the conditions of Section 7(2)(c) of the Redundancy Payments Act were met in respect of the respondent’s position vis-à-vis the complainant’s employment.

Another element that supports the redundancy process relates to alternatives to redundancy.  The respondent organisation has a limited number of employees, involved in finance and groundskeeping requiring either qualifications or experience.  It is hard to see where the complainant would have fitted in, if an alternative position was offered to her.  I am satisfied that the respondent did not have any alternative positions to offer the complainant.

The complainant seems not to have been afforded all the procedures that should be provided to an employee facing redundancy however, she confirmed that she was given the reasons verbally for the redundancy and that when her solicitors sought these in writing, they were provided with the reasons.  I am satisfied that the shortcomings of the process accorded to the complainant do not undermine the veracity of redundancy as the reason for dismissal.

Accordingly I find that the complainant was not unfairly dismissed. 

Having regard to all the written and oral evidence provided in relation to this complaint, my decision is that the complainant was not unfairly dismissed.

Unfair Dismissals Act – redundancy given as reason for dismissal – valid redundancy situation – complainant not unfairly dismissed.