Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Stephen  Doyle

Partech Led Migro

Representatives

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-00074233-001

10/08/2025

The complainant submits that he was employed by the respondent from 4 June 2018 to 26 May 2025, most recently as Operations Manager.   The complainant submits that he received one month’s notice of redundancy on 26 May 2025, when he was dismissed from his role due to redundancy in a process which he submits was unfair. 

The complainant submitted a claim of unfair dismissal in this regard on 10th of August 2025.

The complainant submits that no adequate explanation was given for his redundancy and no alternative role was offered.

The respondent denies this, submitting that the complainant was dismissed after a fair and transparent redundancy process brought about by changes in the business which resulted in a reduction in the volume of work attached to the role in which the complainant was employed.

The complainant submits that he was employed by the respondent from 4 June 2018 to 26 May 2025, most recently as Operations Manager.

The complainant submits that he received one month’s notice of redundancy on 26 May 2025, without prior warning or any alternative being offered.

The complainant submits that he received a redundancy payment in the region of €9,000 on 2 July 2025 plus notice pay of one month’s salary.

The complainant submits that he was initially hired to undertake a broad range of duties, including Building grow lights, answering customer queries, troubleshooting technical product issues, managing goods in and out, stock levels and shipments, staging product setups for the respondent’s social media appearance and creating and maintaining an indoor garden to showcase products in addition to assembly of grow lights.

The complainant submits that he was promoted to Operations Manager and continued these duties, except for the assembly of grow lights, which was outsourced to a Chinese company in 2022.

The complainant submits that he was responsible for implementing a new FedEx system which automatically transferred shipment addresses from Shopify to FedEx, replacing the previous process of manually copying and pasting each address which made the shipping process more efficient overall.

The complainant submits that a new company has handled all shipments within the United States since March 2025,

The complainant submits that at the beginning of his employment he carried out social media marketing via the companies Instagram he reposted content from customers using the products.

The complainant submits that after the account received several strikes because of the nature of this content, the respondent owner, Mr. T instructed him to stop reposting customer material and said that he would generate the content himself instead.

The complainant submits that after several months, Mr. T again requested him to generate social media content, but the complainant refused stating that he was not comfortable creating or appearing in videos,

The complainant submits that over the following years, Mr. T periodically renewed his request/demand that the complainant create social media content.

The complainant submits that when this issue arose again the complainant repeated his concerns and advised Mr. T that he would have no option but to resign if Mr. T continued to demand that he carry out social media work for the business.

The complainant submits that in March 2025 Mr. T hired Mr. H as Marketing Manager.

The complainant submits that he was instructed to train Mr. H in all duties so that he could cover during annual leave.

The complainant submits that the principal differences between his role and that of Mr. H was that Mr. H appeared on camera in social media content and contacted third-party companies about sponsorships and collaborations

The complainant submits that he was unfairly dismissed because of reduced sales during the company’s annual slow period.

The complainant disputes that his role was redundant and submits that he was replaced by Mr. .H who was hired in March 2025.

The respondent submits that the operational basis for, the redundancy of the complainant’s position was due to changes in the business which resulted in a reduction in the volume of work attached to the role.

The respondent submits that   consideration was given to other available duties which the complainant refused to take on.

The respondent submits that the complainant was employed primarily to answer customer messages and to process, prepare and ship customer orders.

The respondent submits that on 26 May 2025, the complainant was issued with one month’s notice that his position was being made redundant. An email confirming the redundancy payment was issued on 30 June 2025, and the payment was subsequently made.

The respondent submits that the decision related to the position itself and arose from a sustained and substantial reduction in the work available within that position

The respondent submits that he tried to discuss the reducing workload with the complainant in the months preceding the redundancy, but the complainant refused to listen and on one occasion walked out when Mr. T tried to broach the subject with him.

The respondent submits that   in reaching the redundancy decision, consideration was given to the duties that continued to be required, the time needed to perform those duties, the effect of changes to the company’s fulfilment arrangements, and whether there was sufficient other suitable work to maintain a full-time position.

The respondent submits that during the year preceding the redundancy, the time required to answer customer messages and fulfil orders reduced significantly arising from a combination of lower order volumes and changes to the company’s systems and logistics arrangements.

The respondent submits that   In June 2024, a new FedEx system was introduced to process orders shipped from Dublin more efficiently. The revised process reduced the level of manual administration and the amount of staff time required for each order.

The respondent submits that a further material change took place in March 2025, when the company outsourced its United States logistics operation to a warehouse located in the United States. From that point onward, orders placed by US customers were fulfilled directly by that warehouse and no longer required processing, packing, shipping or other intervention by staff in Dublin. This removed a significant category of work from the Dublin operation on an ongoing basis.

The respondent submits that in addition to these operational changes, total order volumes had declined by 28% year on year. US orders represented approximately 29% of sales and, following the outsourcing arrangement, were fulfilled directly by the US warehouse.

The respondent submits that taken together, the overall decline in orders and the removal of US fulfilment work from Dublin resulted in an estimated reduction of almost 60% in the number of orders requiring shipment from the Dublin operation.

The effect was therefore both substantial and continuing fewer orders were being placed overall, and a significant proportion of those still being placed no longer required handling in Dublin.

Section 6 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, as amended (the “1977 Act”) provides:

“(4) … 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…

(6) In determining for the purposes of this Act whether the dismissal of an employee was an unfair dismissal or not, it shall be for the employer to show that the dismissal resulted wholly or mainly from one or more of the matters specified in subsection (4) of this section or that there were other substantial grounds justifying the dismissal.

(7) …in determining if a dismissal is an unfair dismissal, regard may be had, if the adjudication officer or the Labour Court, as the case may be, considers it appropriate to do so—

1. to the reasonableness or otherwise of the conduct (whether by act or omission) of the employer in relation to the dismissal, and 

2. to the extent (if any) of the compliance or failure to comply by the employer in relation to the employee with [any dismissal procedure] or with the provisions of any code of practice...”

3.3

3.4

3.5

Section 7(2) of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 (the “1967 Act”) provides that: 

“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.

It is submitted on behalf of the Respondent that the Complainant’s claim of unfair dismissal on the grounds of redundancy is without merit.

The Complainant submits that he was unfairly dismissed by the Respondent. The Respondent denies this and submits that the dismissal arose by reason of redundancy, following a fair process during which alternative roles were considered.

The Complainant disputes that there was a genuine redundancy situation. He relies, in particular, on the fact that a marketing manager Mr. H was hired three months prior to his dismissal and asserts that Mr H took on his role.

The Respondent rejects the proposition that Mr. H took over the complainant’s role stating that Mr. H was hired as a marketing manager and that the core duties of this role relate to social media marketing duties which the complainant was asked to do a number of times, but he refused.

I note that both sides agree that the complainant refused to carry out social media content creation and that the complainant’s position was that he would resign if these duties were imposed on him.

Genuine Redundancy

In considering this matter, I am mindful that a genuine redundancy generally depends on whether there was a real business reason for the disappearance or reduction of the role, rather than a desire to remove a particular employee.

The Respondent’s position is that the reduction in sales and the automation and outsourcing of certain process diminished the need for the complainant’s role submitting that, as a result, there was no continuing requirement for the Complainant’s role.

The Respondent submits that this decision was justified in circumstances where the growth area was in online business and the complainant had refused to diversify into the duties required to grow this part of the business.

Alternative Employment and Redeployment Efforts

The Respondent advised the hearing that it sought an alternative role for the Complainant within the organisation, but the growth area was in online business, and the complainant had refused to diversify into the duties required to grow this part of the business.

The complainant submitted that he had been unfairly dismissed through a sham redundancy process. On 26 May 2025, he was notified that his position was redundant. His employment ended on 26 June 2025, and he received approximately €9,000 in redundancy and one month’s pay in lieu of notice, during which he did not work.

The complainant advised the hearing that he began a new job the following Monday at approximately the same rate of pay and experienced no unemployment.  He stated that as this new role was in construction it could sometimes require travel of up to one hour to and from work depending on the work location.

The respondent Mr T advised the hearing that the complainants role became redundant for a number of reasons one of which was a decrease in orders by 28% year on year.  Mr. T advised the hearing that the business had moved from local manufacturing to outsourced manufacturing in China and outsourced logistics for US orders six to seven months earlier, resulting in 29% fewer orders being processed locally in Dublin.

The complainant advised the hearing that his duties had included packing and shipping orders, responding to customer queries and assisting customers attending the showroom.   He acknowledged that semi-automated label generation and outsourced logistics had reduced this workload.

The respondent Mr T advised the hearing that he was very familiar with the work involved in the complainant’s role because he covered it during the complainant’s annual leave or sick leave.   Mr. T stated that it had come to a stage where the complainants remaining duties took approximately 1.5 to 2 hours per day, based on approximately eight daily orders.

Mr T denied that Mr H had replaced the complainant and advised the hearing that Mr H was recruited in March 2025 for a distinct sales and marketing role, primarily involving content creation and social media marketing to grow online sales.   Mr. T stated that Mr H worked remotely from Belfast three days a week and has since left the business.

The respondent Mr T advised the hearing that Mr H had been trained across the business to provide leave cover and advised that here was limited overlap between the roles, Mr T provided details of the roles and different duties.

Mr T stated that no one assumed the complainant’s role; but that he himself had absorbed the remaining operational duties himself.   Mr T stated that no other role was available because he managed all other aspects of the business.

Both parties agreed that Mr T had asked the complainant on a number of occasions to undertake social media work for the business. The complainant stated that he had initially managed the respondent’s Instagram account by reposting customer content but later declined to resume the work because he was uncomfortable with public speaking and had no graphic-design background.  The complainant advised the hearing that he had stated that he would resign if required to perform such work.

The respondent’s advised the hearing that without that work, there was insufficient work to retain the complainant.    Mr T’s comparison between the roles of the complainant and Mr. H showed limited overlap between the complainant’s operational role and Mr H’s distinct content-creation and social-media-marketing role.

The respondent submits that consideration was also given to whether other duties could be added to the complainant’s responsibilities so as to preserve a full-time position and it was clear that the principal area of potentially available work was social media marketing which the complainant was offered but refused to take on.

Mr. T advised the hearing that by the time of the redundancy, the respondent estimated that the complainant’s duties required approximately 1 to 2 hours per day.

 The complainant disputed this, citing occasions when several pallets of stock required processing. Mr T accepted that backlogs occurred occasionally and said that he assisted when they did.

The complainant advised the hearing that he also dealt with showroom customers. Mr T in response to this stated that fewer than one customer attended per week and that the showroom was maintained mainly for content creation and online sales.

The respondent Mr T noted that the complainant operated his own personal Instagram account about plant cultivation but stated that he would not undertake similar work for the business.

Mr T stated that the complainant had previously walked out when asked to do things differently at work including during a discussion about his diminishing workload.   Mr. T referred to email correspondence dated 14 January 2023 concerning an earlier performance meeting at which, he said, the complainant became aggressive and left.

Mr. T advised the hearing that although a second person was required to provide cover during Mr T’s leave, Mr T could absorb the complainant’s duties during the complainant’s leave because the workload had reduced to such an extent.

Mr T advised the hearing that he had on 26 May 2025, given the complainant one month’s notice of redundancy.  Mr. T stated that the complainant in response alleged that Mr. H had replaced him, called Mr T a liar and described the redundancy as unfair.  Mr T said that the complainant behaved aggressively.   Mr. T stated that the complainant was not required to work during the four-week notice period, but that he was paid for the month and received letters of reference.

The complainant advised the hearing that he had commenced another job at a similar salary on the Monday after his employment ended on 26 June 2025. He experienced no unemployment and thus fully mitigated his loss.

Conclusion

In reaching my conclusion, I am mindful of O’Rourke v Valcroft Limited (UD1718/2012; 2015), in which the EAT criticised procedural shortcomings in a redundancy process but found that they did not undermine either the genuineness of the redundancy or the fairness of the dismissal.

I must nevertheless determine whether the procedural deficiencies rendered this dismissal unfair in all the circumstances. The Respondent is a small enterprise with two employees and no dedicated HR function. Although that does not remove the obligation to follow fair procedures, it provides relevant context for the absence of a more formal process.

I note that consultation was limited. However, I am satisfied that further consultation would not have changed the outcome because no viable alternative role was available.

The evidence establishes that operational activity had substantially declined and that the business’s principal growth area was in online sales. The Complainant had repeatedly declined the available social media work and had stated that he would resign if required to undertake it. In those circumstances, a more extensive consultation process was unlikely to produce a different result.

Taking the evidence as a whole, I find that the dismissal arose from a genuine redundancy grounded in the economic circumstances of the Respondent’s business. Although there were procedural shortcomings, they are not sufficient to render the dismissal unfair where the redundancy was genuine, no suitable alternative role existed, and further consultation was unlikely to alter the outcome.

This conclusion is consistent with Ahearne v Acorn Brokerage (ADJ-00030821; 2022), where the Adjudication Officer, citing Redmond on Dismissal Law, endorsed a balanced assessment of the parties’ overall interactions during a redundancy process. Procedural criticism does not, of itself, make a redundancy dismissal unfair when the process is considered in its totality.

Having considered all the written and oral evidence, I am satisfied that the Complainant was not unfairly dismissed. Accordingly, I declare the complaint not well founded.

 I am satisfied having considered all the written and oral evidence provided in relation to this complaint, that the complainant was not unfairly dismissed.  Accordingly, I declare this claim to be not well founded