Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

Construction Services Company.

Representatives

Self-Represented

Managing Director

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 - 00005091

01/09/2025

The Worker in this dispute commenced work with the construction sector Respondent on 28 October 2024 and he was laid off on 31 August 2025. His wages during the currency of the employment were €19 per hour for a 39-hour week. The Worker contends that he was unfairly selected for redundancy by the Employer and that the termination of his employment was, in substance, unfair. The Worker had not the requisite 12 months service to submit a complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, as amended.

The Worker was employed as a window fitter for approximately eight months. It is not in dispute that his role came to an end in circumstances which the Employer characterises as a redundancy arising from a downturn in work in a particular segment of the business.

The Employer’s position is that a review of staffing requirements identified a need to reduce numbers and that the Worker was selected having regard to business needs and relative skill sets. It maintains that other employees were retained due to possessing more specialised or commercially relevant experience.

The Worker submits that the redundancy process was neither fair nor objective. He contends that no clear or transparent selection criteria were applied and that he was not provided with any meaningful explanation as to why he, as opposed to other employees, was selected for redundancy.

He gave evidence that he was informed at various times that the decision was based on a downturn in work or his alleged lack of skills, together with his relative length of service. He submits that these explanations were inconsistent and lacked credibility.

The Worker further contends that other employees, including more junior or recently hired individuals, were retained in employment notwithstanding his own experience. He disputes the assertion that he lacked the requisite skills and notes that he carried out all tasks assigned to him during his employment.

He also relies on the reference provided by the Employer, which did not identify any deficiencies in his performance or capability.

The Worker submits that the true reason for his selection was not redundancy but rather his ongoing engagement with management in relation to his pay, including his expectation of an increase. He asserts he raised concerns regarding  a fuel allowance that was taken away from him, and changes to his work location. He contends that he was, in effect, selected as an “easy option” for termination due to his representations.

The Employer submits that the Worker’s role was made redundant due to a downturn in work in a particular area of the business. It states that a review of staffing levels was undertaken and that it was necessary to reduce the workforce accordingly.

The Employer contends that the Worker was selected for redundancy having regard to his skill set and the needs of the business. It maintains that other employees who were retained had superior or more specialised skills, including experience in commercial glazing, which were required for ongoing work. It was submitted that the Worker was the second last person hired and that, when assessing available work and skill requirements, it was determined that he was the most appropriate employee to be let go.

The Employer denies that the Worker’s selection was influenced by any issues raised by him during his employment and maintains that the decision was based solely on legitimate business considerations.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties. This is a dispute under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969, and as such, my role is to assess the overall fairness of the termination in a non-legal sense. While I accept that the Employer experienced a downturn in work and was entitled to consider a reduction in staff, I am not satisfied that the selection of the Worker for redundancy was conducted in a fair or objective manner.

Firstly, the Employer advanced a number of differing explanations for the Worker’s selection, including skill level, length of service and business needs. These explanations were not consistently applied or clearly evidenced. In particular, the assertion that the Worker lacked the necessary skills was not supported by any objective assessment or documentation. Secondly, while the Employer stated that more junior or recently hired employees were retained due to superior skills, no convincing or detailed account was provided as to the specific deficiencies in the Worker’s performance. In contrast, the reference furnished to the Worker did not identify any shortcomings and indicated that he performed his duties satisfactorily. Thirdly, there was an absence of any identifiable selection matrix or structured process. The Worker’s evidence that he was not provided with criteria for selection was not meaningfully contradicted. Fourthly, I note that the process itself was rushed. The Worker was called to a meeting at short notice without clear prior notification of its purpose, and there is no evidence of any meaningful consultation or opportunity afforded to him to respond to the proposed redundancy. This lack of procedural fairness further undermines the Employer’s position. Having regard to the totality of the evidence, I consider it more probable than not that the Worker was selected, at least in part, because he had been raising issues during his employment, including in relation to his expected pay increase, the withdrawal of a fuel allowance and changes to his working arrangements. In those circumstances, I find that he was effectively treated as an easy target for redundancy selection.

Industrial Relations Act 1969.