ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference:  ADJ-00064377

Parties:

Complaint:

Date of Adjudication Hearing:  16/07/2026

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Gaye Cunningham

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015  and/or Section 8 of the UnfairDismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint. This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. 359 of 2020, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. The correct name of the Respondent/Employer was inserted by agreement.

Background:

The Complainant contends he was unfairly dismissed by reason of redundancy which was not genuine as it was effected without procedure and after he did not agree to a paycut.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent gave a written submission and evidence was given on affirmation by the main partners in the business.

The Complainant’s employment terminated solely by reason of a genuine redundancy, arising from the severe financial difficulties experienced by the business and the consequent requirement to reduce costs to ensure the company's continued viability.

The redundancy was genuine, arose from legitimate business circumstances, and was not a mechanism to remove the Complainant from employment. The duties previously performed by the Complainant were absorbed by the Company's Managing Director as part of a wider restructuring programme that affected several positions across the organisation. The Complainant has not been replaced and in fact the business has had to unfortunately make some other people redundant in the last number of months.

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 15 April 2024 as General Manager of Eclipse Renewables. His primary responsibility was to establish and develop the Company's renewable energy division, with overall responsibility for sales and business development within that sector. The intention was to create a profitable business unit providing solar photovoltaic (PV), EV charging and energy management solutions to both existing and new customers, while utilising the Respondent's existing engineering, design, commissioning and maintenance capabilities. The renewable energy business operated under the Eclipse brand to benefit from the Company's existing reputation and market presence.

The Complainant's remuneration package comprised:

• Gross annual salary of €100,000;
• Commission in accordance with the agreed Commission Plan;
• Company vehicle;
• Other benefits as set out in the agreed Package Summary dated 28 March 2024.

Shortly after the renewable energy division commenced operations it became evident that the market was substantially more competitive than anticipated. The Respondent encountered significant pricing pressure from smaller operators with considerably lower overheads, making it extremely difficult to compete while maintaining appropriate engineering standards, compliance obligations and experienced personnel. Despite securing direct supply arrangements with manufacturing partners and making significant investment in personnel, equipment, inventory and operational resources, the renewable energy division generated only a limited number of projects. Those projects were secured at very low margins primarily to establish a project portfolio and therefore delivered little or no meaningful financial return. The business was not doing well. There was difficultly in even covering the costs of the business and the Complainant’s salary. However, the Respondent did not want to make the Complainant redundant. Hence during Q3 2024, the Respondent expanded the Complainant's responsibilities to include sales of lighting and building automation systems in an effort to increase revenue opportunities and improve the commercial performance of the business. Unfortunately, despite these changes, sales continued to remain substantially below forecast and the business trading levels were a major concern.

By early 2025, it was therefore agreed that the Complainant would assume responsibility for sales across all areas of the business, including renewable energy, lighting and building automation. In March 2025, following the resignation of a member of the sales team, the Respondent made the decision not to recruit a replacement. Instead, those responsibilities were redistributed internally as part of ongoing cost reduction measures.

Throughout 2025, the management team weekly meetings examined the poor sales forecast, the cost issues and the worrying trading pattern of the business. The Complainant was a member of the Management team and was present at all these meetings.

During these meetings management regularly examined:

• declining sales;
• insufficient secured revenue;
• increasing operating costs;
• measures to increase sales;
• opportunities to reduce expenditure wherever possible.

The Company's financial position continued to deteriorate throughout 2025. In October 2025 the Company's Finance and Operations Manager resigned. This was a welcome situation in terms of cost savings as the Management team had the highest salaries. However, the MD realised that the business could not continue to trade with the current structure and cost base. At this stage every possible cost-saving measure was considered.

The objective throughout was to avoid compulsory redundancies wherever possible and preserve the maximum number of jobs. Most of the cost saving initiatives indicated above were implemented and indeed both the Technical Manager and the Engineering Manager agreed to changes in their remuneration levels. Both of those roles were technical, people management roles and hence it was very difficult to consider absorbing their functions into the business.

However, the role of Sales Manager was one that was identified that could be absorbed and restructured. Mr Deely was put at risk of redundancy and a consultation process commenced.

the Managing Director met the Complainant on Friday 10 October 2025. During this meeting the Company's financial position was discussed openly and candidly. The Managing Director explained:

• the sustained lack of sales;
• the unsustainable cost base;
• the urgent requirement to reduce expenditure;
• the possibility that further reductions in staffing could become necessary. During this discussion the Complainant asked what steps he could personally take to assist the business. Possible measures discussed included:
• a temporary reduction in salary;
• limiting business expenses;
• reducing travel expenditure;
• downgrading the company vehicle to reduce leasing costs.

The Complainant stated that he wished to discuss these proposals with his partner before responding. The Managing Director also confirmed that similar discussions were taking place with other senior employees, while explaining that lower-paid employees could not realistically absorb salary reductions at this time.

During the following days the Directors reviewed every position within the Company to determine whether responsibilities could be consolidated. It was concluded that:

• the Managing Director could assume responsibility for the Complainant's sales functions, but this would only occur if the role became redundant following a period of consultation.
• the remaining Director would undertake the Finance function;
• operational responsibilities would be redistributed to the Estimations Manager. This restructuring would enable the Company to eliminate senior management costs while maintaining operational continuity.

On Monday 13 October 2025 the Managing Director spoke with the Complainant by telephone. The Complainant advised that he could not agree to either:

• a temporary salary reduction;
• any reduction in the level of his company vehicle.

The Managing Director advised that, while his position was understood, the Company's financial circumstances meant redundancy remained a real possibility unless alternative savings could be identified. The parties agreed to meet again by Microsoft Teams together with the other Director. That meeting took place on 15 October 2025. During the meeting the possibility of a temporary salary reduction was again explored. The Complainant confirmed that this was not an option available to him and no alternative proposals capable of achieving the required cost savings were identified. Having exhausted the available alternatives, the Respondent regrettably informed the Complainant that his position was being made redundant and that his duties would thereafter be undertaken by the Managing Director as part of the wider restructuring.

On 16 October 2025 the Respondent responded to the Complainant's queries regarding the redundancy process. Formal written confirmation of redundancy was issued on 17 October 2025.

The Respondent respectfully submits that the dismissal of the Complainant resulted from a genuine redundancy arising from severe and sustained financial difficulties affecting the business. The Respondent carefully reviewed all available alternatives, consulted with the Complainant, explored temporary cost-saving measures, restructured the organisation, redistributed responsibilities and only proceeded with redundancy when no reasonable alternative remained. The Complainant was afforded a Consultation period and indeed every effort was made to avoid the redundancy. The Respondent is now running the business with fewer people. The Sales Manager was not replaced. Every effort was made to consult and explore alternatives with the Complainant prior to the redundancy arising. In addition, if the Respondent had endeavoured to dismiss the Complainant he would have done so some twelve months prior when the problems first emerged. The Complainant's position ceased to exist and his duties were absorbed by the Managing Director as part of a wider restructuring affecting several positions throughout the Company. The Respondent respectfully requests that the Adjudication Officer dismiss the complaint in its entirety.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant's case is that his dismissal was procedurally and substantively unfair. The primary basis of this complaint is that no consultation process of any kind was undertaken prior to the decision to terminate his employment, and that the entire process — from the Complainant's refusal of a proposed pay reduction to the confirmation of his redundancy — took place within a period of four days. Financial loss, while addressed below for completeness, is not the substance of this complaint.

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 15th April 2024 in the role of General Manager, at an annual salary of €100,000.

• On Friday 10th October 2025, the Complainant was requested by the Respondent to consider taking a pay cut due to financial difficulties within the business.
• On Monday 13th October the Complainant, after careful consideration, declined to accept the proposed pay reduction.
• Two days later, on Wednesday 15th October, the Complainant was informed that his role was being made redundant.
• At no point prior to this decision was the Complainant afforded any consultation, meeting, or opportunity to respond, whether in relation to the proposed pay reduction, the rationale for redundancy, alternatives to redundancy, or the selection process (if any) applied.
• The Complainant was not offered a right of appeal against the decision to terminate his employment.
• The Complainant's final date of paid employment was 14 November 2025.
• The Complainant commenced new employment on 7 January 2026, at an annual salary of €125,000.

It is well established that fair procedures must be observed by an employer prior to any dismissal, including a dismissal by reason of redundancy. This includes, at a minimum: meaningful consultation with the affected employee, consideration of alternatives to redundancy, application of fair and transparent selection criteria where relevant, and an opportunity to appeal the decision. None of these steps were undertaken by the Respondent. The Complainant was given no consultation whatsoever. He was not consulted on the rationale for the redundancy, was not given an opportunity to propose alternatives, and was not afforded a right of appeal. The entire process, from proposed pay reduction to confirmed redundancy, was concluded within four working days — a timeframe that is, on its face, inconsistent with any genuine or meaningful consultation process having taken place. It is submitted that the absence of any process was total, and not merely a technical or minor departure from best practice. On this basis alone, the dismissal falls to be found unfair.

The Complainant further submits that the sequence of events is directly relevant to whether the redundancy relied upon by the Respondent was genuine. The Complainant was asked to accept a reduction in salary; he declined; and within four days he was informed that his position no longer existed. No intervening consultation, business review, or restructuring process was communicated to the Complainant to explain how or why a role that existed on 10th October 2025 no longer existed four days later. It is submitted that this sequence is capable of supporting an inference that the redundancy was not the genuine underlying reason for the Complainant's dismissal, but was instead connected to, or a consequence of, his refusal to accept the proposed pay reduction. The Respondent should be put on notice that the Complainant will be relying on this sequence of events at hearing, and the Complainant invites the Respondent to explain, with supporting documentation, the genuine business rationale for the redundancy and the process (if any) by which it was decided upon and implemented within this timeframe.

As set out above, financial loss is not the substance of this complaint, which centres on the Respondent's complete failure to afford the Complainant any fair process. The following is provided for completeness, in order that the Adjudication Officer has the information required to assess redress in the event that the complaint succeeds.

• The Complainant's gross annual salary at the date of dismissal was €100,000 (approximately €1,923 gross per week).
• The Complainant was paid up to and including 14 November 2025.
• The Complainant began seeking alternative employment prior to the termination of his employment.
• The Complainant secured and commenced new employment on 7 January 2026, a period of approximately 7.5 weeks, at an annual salary of €125,000 — a higher salary than that earned with the Respondent.

Accordingly, the Complainant's financial loss attributable to the dismissal is confined to the period of unemployment between 14 November 2025 and 7 January 2026, calculated at approximately €14,000–€15,000 gross, with no continuing loss thereafter given the Complainant's improved remuneration in his new role.

The Complainant has at all times acted reasonably and diligently in seeking to mitigate his loss, having commenced his job search prior to the cessation of his employment and having secured comparable, better-remunerated employment within a short period.

The Complainant seeks a finding that he was unfairly dismissed within the meaning of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977–2015, and an award of compensation reflecting his financial loss as set out above.

Findings and Conclusions:

Section 6 (1) of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977-2015 provides:

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) provides:

(4) 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:

(c ) the redundancy of the employee, ….

Section 6 (1) (7) of the Act provides

without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, 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-

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

The onus lies on the Respondent to show the dismissal results wholly or mainly from redundancy. The Respondent relies on Section 7 (2) (c) of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 whereby the 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.

In this instant case, I note the clear evidence of the Respondent that the company was facing severe financial challenges and that the Complainant, as a member of the senior management team was aware of the situation.  However, I note the complete absence of process which resulted in the Complainant being told that he would have to take a substantial pay cut to then being told 4 days later that his role was redundant.  I note there were no substantive discussions on alternative roles, no matrix by which the role was selected and no right of appeal granted to the Complainant.  In the circumstances, I have taken into account the ‘reasonableness’ argument in relation to the Respondent’s handling of the Complainant’s dismissal.  I find that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed.  The circumstances dictate that re-instatement or re-engagement are not suitable remedies.  I have taken into account the fact that the Complainant secured alternative employment at a higher annual amount.  I award the Complainant the sum of €5,000 compensation.

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint  in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act.

Based on the findings and reasons outlined, I have decided that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed.  I award the Complainant the sum of €5,000 compensation.

 Dated:   17th September 2026

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Gaye Cunningham

Key Words: