Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Thomas Yontcheu Tcheuffa

Foundry

Representatives

Represented himself

Littler Ireland

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00073889-001

29/07/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11A of the Protection of Employment Act 1977

CA-00073889-002

29/07/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00073889-003

29/07/2025

CA-00073889-001:  Complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977

The respondent sells market intelligence in the technology sector.  The complainant was employed as a business development representative in the French and English language sectors.  He started in August 2021 and, when his job was made redundant in August 2025, he earned an annual salary of just under €30,000.

At a “townhall” meeting on June 16th 2025 which was attended by the complainant, he and 48 colleagues on his team (the SDR team) were informed that their jobs were at risk of redundancy.  On the same day, a letter was issued to the team confirming the commencement of a consultation period and the right of the employees to select a representative to liaise with management about the redundancy process.  The complainant didn’t receive a letter, and, at the hearing, I was informed by Mr Reynolds, on behalf of the respondent, that this was a mistake.

The complainant’s line manager was elected by his team to represent them in discussions with management. 

On July 11th, the complainant notified the HR department that he didn’t get an “at risk” letter which had been issued to his colleagues.  He was then given a letter on July 15th, although it was dated July 16th.  He was provided with an opportunity to consult with the management on an individual basis, to discuss the impact of the delayed letter and to explore ways that the redundancy of his role could be avoided.  He had a meeting with a member of the HR team on July 18th.

The complainant consulted with a solicitor and, on July 24th, his solicitor wrote to the respondent to complain about the fact that he wasn’t notified that his job was at risk at the same time as his colleagues.  On July 28th, he attended a consultation meeting and he was informed that his job was still at risk of redundancy.

On July 29th, the complainant submitted these complaints to the WRC.  On the e-complaint form, he said,

“I was dismissed by reason of redundancy on 16 July 2025.  However, the process followed by my employer, Foundry (IDG), was procedurally unfair and legally non-compliant and therefore constitutes unfair dismissal under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 – 2015.”

On the date he submitted these complaints, the complainant had not been dismissed.  He attended a third meeting with a member of the HR team on August 6th, and, on August 8th, he was issued with two weeks’ notice of the termination of his employment, to be effective from August 22nd.  On August 11th, he submitted an appeal of his dismissal.  Ms Boyle, the head of global HR, who attended the hearing of these complaints on February 24th 2026, considered his appeal and, on August 29th, she wrote to the complainant to inform him that the decision to make his job redundant had been upheld.

It is the complainant’s case that he was denied his right to be consulted about the redundancy of his job and that his dismissal was procedurally unfair.

CA-00073889-002:  Complaint under the Protection of Employment Act 1977

The complainant claims that his employer did not comply with its obligations under the Protection of Employment Act 1977 because, due to the delay issuing him with the letter of June 16th 2025, he wasn’t given an opportunity to select a representative and he wasn’t properly consulted about the redundancy of his job.

CA-00073889-003:  Complaint under the Payment of Wages Act 1991

On his e-complaint form under this heading, the complainant stated:

“Beginning in August 2024, a €300 monthly deduction was applied to my salary without any warning or written communication.”

The complainant said that he discovered that the deduction was connected to an unpaid commission / bonus which was previously part of his monthly earnings.  He said that he received an email on August 21st 2024 to notify him that his team was excluded from a company-wide commission scheme that had been paid up to that date.

In his submission at the WRC, the complainant stated,

“From 2021 onward, I received a monthly performance-based bonus averaging €300 per qualified lead paid as part of my normal monthly salary.”

In breach of s.5 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991, the complainant claims that his employer made an illegal deduction from his wages when he wasn’t paid a bonus or commission from August 2024.

In the email he sent to the WRC on February 25th 2025, the complainant complained that the initial payslip issued to him in relation to his final pay, did not itemise the amounts paid to him in respect of wages, outstanding holidays, pay in lieu of notice and his redundancy lump sum.  He was then issued with a revised payslip with the following breakdown:

Salary:  €1,718.05

Holiday pay:  €1,177.76

Pay in lieu:  €537.82

Stat Redun:  €4,883.41

Following deductions for tax, PRSI and USC from these gross amounts, the complainant received a net amount of €7,757.69 on August 25th 2025.

Due to the extension of the consultation period for the complainant, he remained in employment longer than his colleagues, who left on July 24th 2025.  The complainant is unhappy about the fact that, when his employment ended on August 8th 2025, he wasn’t paid his wages and the additional payments until August 25th.  He also queries whether he was paid for working on the August public holiday.

The complainant also had a query about the effective end date of his employment.  While he stopped working for the respondent on August 8th, he understands that his date of termination is August 22nd, and he claims that the later date has an impact on the calculation of his holiday pay and his redundancy lump sum.

Clarification of the Complainant’s Position

In the correspondence he sent to the WRC on March 2nd 2026, the complainant said that his concern is not about the fact that his job was made redundant, but is about how the redundancy process was conducted in relation to him.  He wasn’t issued with an “at risk” letter at the same time as his colleagues on June 16th, but only on July 15th, after the deadline to nominate a representative had passed.  He claims that this prevented him from participating in the process.  From July 11th, although he said that he looked for written clarification about the process, he claims that his requests were declined, even though the company’s grievance procedure requires written engagement.

The complainant’s colleagues left the business on July 24th 2025, and he remained alone in a role that no longer existed from an operational perspective.  He was instructed not to work from that date and, on August 8th, his employment was terminated.  Notwithstanding that the redundancy of his role may have been genuine, the complainant is aggrieved because he was treated differently and he claims that this may have caused him to be disadvantaged.

Regarding the complaint under the Payment of Wages Act in relation to a bonus, the complainant said that he understood the time limit issue and he asked me to consider if any entitlement arose during the six months prior to the date on which he submitted these complaints to the WRC.

CA-00073889-001:  Complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977

The respondent’s position is that the WRC has no jurisdiction to investigate a complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 in circumstances where the complainant had not been dismissed and had not received notice of his dismissal when he lodged the complaint.  On June 16th 2025, the complainant attended a meeting with his sales colleagues and his line manager at which they were informed that their entire team was at risk of redundancy.  He wasn’t issued with a letter confirming that his job was at risk, and this was accepted to be a mistake.  When he submitted his complaints to the WRC on July 29th 2025, the respondent was still engaging with the complainant about the impact of the redundancy and the possibility of avoiding the loss of his job.  When no alternative could be found, on August 8th 2025, the complainant was issued with two weeks’ notice of the termination of his employment, which was effective on August 22nd 2025.

Mr Reynolds referred to the decision of the former Employment Appeals Tribunal in 2011 in Caragh Neeson v John O’Rourke and Seán O’Rourke Chartered Accountants, UD 2049/2011.  The Tribunal noted that s.8(2) of the Unfair Dismissals Act provides that a claim for redress shall be initiated by notice in writing “within the period of six months beginning on the date of the relevant dismissal.”  The Tribunal held that the stipulation that this period begins on the date of the relevant dismissal demonstrated “a manifest intention by the legislature to preclude claims being lodged before the dismissal date.”  The Tribunal went on to note that,

“If the Tribunal were to look with leniency on premature claims the system could well become clogged up with claims based on the expectation that a dismissal might occur sometime in the future which could later be withdrawn.”

On July 16th, in an email to the HR department, the complainant raised concerns about the impact on him of the delayed notice of the fact that his job was at risk of redundancy.  A meeting took place on July 18th, and on July 21st, the complainant notified the respondent that he was preparing a formal complaint to the WRC.  The following day, a HR manager wrote to him to arrange a meeting to discuss his concerns about the delay issuing him with the “at risk” letter and the impact of that delay on the consultation in advance of his redundancy.  The complainant and the HR manager exchanged correspondence by email on July 25th.  A meeting then took place on July 28th and, on July 30th, the HR manager provided the complainant with a note of the meeting of the 28th, in which she said that the consultation process was on-going.  Also, on July 30th, the HR manager provided the complainant with a list of vacancies, but he replied that none were suitable and that he didn’t want to redeploy to an alternative job.

On July 31st, although he had submitted a complaint regarding his dismissal two days previously, the complainant wrote to the respondent and said,

“Since I have not yet received any formal notice of redundancy – unlike my colleagues from the SDR team who were formally exited as of 24 July – I understand I remain employed under my Irish contract.”

As no dismissal had occurred when the complainant submitted this complaint to the WRC, the respondent submitted that I have no jurisdiction to consider this complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act.

CA-00073889-002:  Complaint under the Protection of Employment Act 1977

While the respondent accepts that there was a delay issuing the complainant with the “at risk” letter of June 16th 2025, it does not accept that this omission constitutes a breach of the collective consultation obligations under the Protection of Employment Act.

The complainant attended the town hall meeting on June 16th when his team was notified that all its members were at risk of redundancy.  The complainant’s line manager was selected as the employees’ representative for the redundancy process.  On June 17th, the line manager told his team that he could be contacted if anyone had questions.  He informed them that “everyone is affected” by the announcement.

The respondent’s position is that, on June 16th, the complainant was informed that his role was at risk.  He didn’t bring the fact that he didn’t get an “at risk” letter to the attention of anyone in HR until July 11th 2025.  Mr Reynolds said that this is not intended as a criticism of the complainant, but, it is the respondent’s position that he was at all material times aware that he was in the impacted cohort of employees at risk of redundancy and he had an opportunity to engage in consultations with the employee representatives if he had chosen to do so.

The respondent acknowledges that the date for the nomination of employee representatives had passed on July 15th when the complainant received his “at risk” letter.  Mr Reynolds referred to s.2 of the Protection of Employment Act, and the obligation of the employer to consult with the employees’ elected representative.  No employee is permitted to insist on a representative of their choosing.  As the complainant’s team leader was unanimously selected to represent the team of affected employees, even if the letter had been issued to the complainant on June 16th, this would have had no bearing on the nomination and election of the employee representative for the team.

It is submitted that, from June 16th until July 24th, the respondent engaged in a productive consultation process in line with its obligations at s.9 of the Protection of Employment Act.  Six collective consultation meetings took place during that period and agreement was reached on the following mitigating measures:

1.       The arrangement of workshops to develop CVs and how to present at interviews took place on July 14th and 15th.

2.       For employees who were entitled to statutory minimum notice of two weeks or less, notice was extended by a further week.

3.       Where employees had taken annual leave in excess of their entitlement in 2025, the negative annual leave balance was struck out.

4.       For employees with more than five years’ service, two additional days’ annual leave was granted.

5.       In lieu of the respondent’s annual shut down days at Christmas, the affected employees were granted three additional days’ annual leave.

Because of the delay providing the complainant with his “at risk” letter, he had an opportunity for an individual consultation process with the HR team.  When, on August 6th 2025, he was asked if he wanted to raise any issues that hadn’t been addressed, he didn’t respond.

It is the respondent’s position that no provision of the Protection of Employment Act has been breached.  If there has been an inadvertent breach of the Act, Mr Reynolds submitted that there was no serious disadvantage or lack of opportunity for the complainant due to the way the respondent managed the consultation process.

CA-00073889-003:  Complaint under the Payment of Wages Act 1991

On the form he submitted to the WRC, the complainant claims that this alleged contravention, the failure to pay him a bonus, occurred in August 2024.  The respondent’s position is that the complaint is therefore outside the time limit for submitting complaints.

Without prejudice to the out of time argument, the respondent rejects the assertion that the complainant had an entitlement to a bonus or commission and the claim that his wages were subject to a deduction is without foundation.

The respondent accepts that there had been an ad hoc scheme in place outside the normal compensation processes.  Mr Reynolds said that there was no dedicated plan or documentation in place and the scheme was entirely discretionary and was phased out in August 2024.  This was communicated by team leaders to their teams on August 21st 2024, with the final confirmation of the withdrawal confirmed on December 10th 2024.  The complainant didn’t raise an issue about this at the time.  In 2023, the complainant received €165 by way of this ad hoc commission, with no payments made in 2024.

It is the respondent’s position that this complaint is entirely without merit.

CA-00073889-001:  Complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977

Section 8(2) of the Unfair Dismissals Act sets out how a claim of unfair dismissal may be determined at the WRC:

(2) A claim for redress under this Act shall be initiated by giving a notice in writing (containing such particulars (if any) as may be specified in regulations under subsection (17) of section 41 of the Act of 2015) to the Director General -

(a) within the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the relevant dismissal, or

(b) within such period not exceeding 12 months from the date of the relevant dismissal as the adjudication officer considers appropriate, in circumstances where the adjudication officer is satisfied that the giving of the notice within the period referred to in paragraph (a) was prevented due to reasonable cause,

and a copy of the notice shall be given by the Director General to the employer concerned as soon as may be after the receipt of the notice by the Director General.

Section 41(17) of the Workplace Relations Act which is referred to here is concerned with the authority of the Minister of Enterprise and Employment to make regulations for how complaints are to be presented and conducted at the WRC and has no bearing on this complaint.

My responsibility under the law is to consider a complaint concerning an alleged unfair dismissal which is submitted within six months beginning on the date of dismissal.  When he submitted this complaint to the WRC on July 29th 2025, the complainant stated that he was dismissed on July 16th.  I am satisfied that he had not been dismissed on that date, but that he was dismissed due to redundancy on August 22nd 2025.  It was open to him at that stage, and, until February 21st 2026, to submit a complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act, but he did not do so.

In his email of March 2nd 2026, which he sent to me for consideration after the hearing, the complainant said that his complaint “has never been against redundancy itself.”  It seems to me that the complainant ticked the box to make a complaint about his dismissal without understanding the rudimentary mechanics of the legislation and I am satisfied that his concern is not that his dismissal was unfair.  I have concluded that the core issue of concern to the complainant is that some disadvantage may have occurred because the “at risk” letter given to his colleagues on June 16th wasn’t issued to him until July 15th. 

As this complaint was submitted on July 29th 2025,  when the complainant was not dismissed, I have no authority to investigate a claim that his dismissal was unfair.

CA-00073889-002:  Complaint under the Protection of Employment Act 1977

Section 9 of the Protection of Employment Act 1977 deals with the responsibility of an employer to engage in collective consultations with employees at risk of redundancy:

(1) Where an employer or a responsible person proposes to create collective redundancies, he or she shall, with a view to reaching an agreement, initiate consultations with employees’ representatives.

(2) Consultations under this section shall include the following matters -

(a) the possibility of avoiding the proposed redundancies, reducing the number of employees affected by them or mitigating their consequences by recourse to accompanying social measures aimed, inter alia, at aid for redeploying or retraining employees made redundant,

(b) the basis on which it will be decided which particular employees will be made redundant.

(3) Consultations under this section shall be initiated at the earliest opportunity and in any event at least 30 days before the first notice of dismissal is given.

(4) Where an employer has initiated consultations with employees’ representatives under this section, a responsible person may continue any consultation so initiated.

A town hall meeting was held on June 16th 2025 to inform the complainant’s team that they were at risk of redundancy.  The complainant attended this meeting and a document he submitted in evidence at the hearing shows that he understood that he was at risk, along with all his colleagues.  I am satisfied that, from the date that all the members of his team were informed that they were at risk of redundancy, the complainant was on notice of this fact.

Due to an error, the complainant was not issued with a letter confirming the information provided at the meeting on June 16th, to notify the employees that they were at risk of redundancy.  While the respondent has conceded that this was a mistake, I am satisfied that the complainant was always on notice that his job was at risk and that no disadvantage occurred to him due to the letter not being issued.  I have reached this conclusion because it is evident that the complainant was included in e-mail correspondence between the SDR team and their line manager, who was elected as the employees’ representative. 

For some reason which he did not explain, the complainant contacted the HR team on July 11th to complain that he wasn’t issued with an “at risk” letter.  A letter was given to him on July 15th. 

By July 15th, the date for nominating an employee representative had passed, and the complainant’s line manager had been selected by the SDR team to represent the affected employees in discussions with management.  I am satisfied that, even if the complainant had been issued with an “at risk” letter on June 16th, his line manager would have been selected to represent him and his colleagues. 

Between June 16th and July 24th 2025, the employee representatives engaged with the respondent to discuss the impact of the redundancy on the staff and to come up with measures to mitigate that impact.  The discussions resulted in a number of initiatives, including the arrangement of a workshop for employees to update their CVs, which the complainant attended on July 14th.

It is apparent that the HR team reacted with some seriousness to the fact that the complainant wasn’t issued with a letter on June 16th.  A member of the HR team met the complainant on July 18th.  An individual consultation meeting was held on July 28th.  On July 30th, he was provided with a list of vacancies, but he sent an email to the HR team in which he said that he didn’t want to remain working for the company.  A final individual consultation meeting was held on August 6th.  The notes of the meeting show that the complainant didn’t engage in the discussion and didn’t raise any concerns but asked for confirmation of the discussion in writing.  A note of the meeting was provided to him soon afterwards.  Based on this chronology of meetings and correspondence, I reject the complainant’s assertions that he was not provided with written responses to his queries.

I note that s.9 of the Protection of Employment Act which is recoded above places no obligation on an employer to provide written confirmation of an intention to make an employee redundant in advance of the requirement to issue formal notice in accordance with the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973.  I am satisfied therefore, that there has been no breach of s.9 of the 1977 Act.  It is my view that the failure of the respondent to issue the complainant with a letter on June 16th 2025, was remedied on July 15th.  I am further satisfied that the action taken by the HR team to meet the complainant on an individual basis and to ensure that his concerns were raised and addressed was adequate to ensure that no disadvantage arose from the mistake.  

CA-00073889-003:  Complaint under the Payment of Wages Act 1991

Section 5(6) of the Payment of Wages Act addresses the circumstances in which wages which are properly payable are not paid:

(6) Where—

(a) the total amount of any wages that are paid on any occasion by an employer to an employee is less than the total amount of wages that is properly payable by him to the employee on that occasion (after making any deductions therefrom that fall to be made and are in accordance with this Act), or

(b) none of the wages that are properly payable to an employee by an employer on any occasion (after making any such deductions as aforesaid) are paid to the employee,

then, except in so far as the deficiency or non-payment is attributable to an error of computation, the amount of the deficiency or non-payment shall be treated as a deduction made by the employer from the wages of the employee on the occasion.

The complainant alleges that, with effect from August 21st 2024, on a monthly basis, he wasn’t paid a bonus of €300.  I understand that there had been an ad hoc scheme which resulted in occasional payments over and above wages which was phased out in August 2024.  In 2023, the complainant received €164 under this ad hoc scheme, and no payment in 2024.  

I have reviewed the complainant’s contract of employment and I can find no evidence of a contractual entitlement to a bonus, or to any payment over and above his entitlement to his annual salary of just under €30,000.  As he provided no evidence of his entitlement to a monthly bonus, and no evidence that, prior to August 2024, he was paid a monthly bonus of €300, I must conclude that a bonus was not properly payable.  Having reached this conclusion, I am satisfied that there has been no illegal deduction from the complainant’s wages and no breach of s.5 of the 1991 Act.

I have considered the issues raised by the complainant in his email to me of March 2nd 2026 regarding his final wages, his holiday pay and his redundancy lump sum.  Having reviewed the payslip, I can identify no payroll errors. 

CA-00073889-001:  Complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977

CA-00073889-002:  Complaint under the Protection of Employment Act 1977

CA-00073889-003:  Complaint under the Payment of Wages Act 1991

I have considered these complaints and it is my view that they were dealt adequately when the complainant’s appeal of his dismissal was considered by the global head of HR, Ms Boyle, on August 29th 2025.  I am satisfied also that Ms Boyle examined the complainant’s case that he was disadvantaged by the late issuing of the “at risk” letter on July 15th 2025 and I agree with her that no disadvantage occurred.  I find that the complainant had no contractual entitlement to a bonus and that there was no illegal deduction from his wages.

I have reviewed the complainant’s submissions and considered his evidence, in addition to the supplementary documents he sent to the WRC after the hearing.  I have decided that these three complaints are not well founded.

Redundancy, dismissal, consultation regarding redundancy, deduction from wages