Unfair dismissal update: Rise in redundancies highlight importance of following fair process

In the recent case of Helen Nason v Horizon Controls Limited (ADJ-00052475), the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) has held that an employer cannot retrospectively rely on redundancy to justify a dismissal where no reason was communicated to the employee at the time of termination.

Against the backdrop of a steady increase in redundancy activity across Ireland, this decision serves as a timely reminder that employers must ensure that redundancies are both substantively justified and procedurally fair. A failure to do so can expose employers to significant liability under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977-2015 (UDA).

What are the requirements of a lawful redundancy?[1]

Section 6 (1) of the UDA provides that all dismissals are presumed unfair, unless there are “substantial grounds” justifying the dismissal. Section 6(4) goes on to state that a dismissal will not be regarded as unfair where it arises wholly or mainly from certain specified grounds, including redundancy.

However, in order for a lawful dismissal to take place on the grounds of redundancy, employers must be in a position to demonstrate the following:

• A dismissal on the grounds of redundancy must be “genuine” and fall within the definition of redundancy under section 7 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 (RPA).[2]
• Where a pool exists, a fair selection process must be followed, based on objective, transparent and non-discriminatory criteria.
• A meaningful consultation process must be carried out, giving the employee the opportunity to identify any alternatives to the redundancy of their role.
• Fair procedures must be afforded to the employee, such as the right to be accompanied, and the right of appeal. As discussed below, the instant decision is a timely reminder for employers that, even in a genuine redundancy scenario, a failure to follow fair procedures may expose the employer to a successful claim of unfair dismissal.

What happened in this case?

The Complainant was employed with the Respondent as Chief Financial Officer from December 2022 to April 2024. She was dismissed without warning at a meeting on 3 April 2024 with the CEO and HR, at which:

• No reason for the dismissal was provided
• No redundancy consultation process had taken place in advance
• No right of appeal was provided, the Complainant did not have the right to be accompanied to the meeting, and her access to company systems was revoked shortly afterwards.

The complainant subsequently requested written reasons for her dismissal under section 14 of the UDA, but no response was provided.

In the course of the WRC proceedings, the respondent asserted that the dismissal arose due to redundancy, pointing to financial difficulties, previous redundancies and the fact that the role had not been replaced. The respondent accepted, however, that the procedure followed was flawed and that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed, meaning that the only remaining issue before the WRC was the obligation of the Complainant to mitigate her financial loss arising from the dismissal. On this point, the Respondent did not accept that the Complainant’s alleged efforts to mitigate her losses were genuine in nature, in particular in light of the fact that she was CFO of a large multi-national company previously and “should not have been six months out of work”.

What did the WRC decide?

Adjudication Officer, Davnet O'Driscoll, found that the complainant had been unfairly dismissed on both substantive and procedural grounds.

In particular, Ms O'Driscoll held that the employer had failed to identify or rely on redundancy (or any other substantial ground) at the time of dismissal. The failure to provide any reason for dismissal, either at the time or in response to a statutory request, was unreasonable and undoubtedly caused difficulty for the Complainant in seeking to find other employment.

Ms O'Driscoll also accepted that the complainant had made reasonable efforts to mitigate her loss, noting that she applied for 146 roles and ultimately secured alternative employment at a reduced salary in October 2025.

The complainant was awarded €60,230 in compensation. Reinstatement was not considered appropriate in circumstances where the role was no longer in existence and the complainant had obtained new employment.

Conclusion

This decision is a clear reminder that employers must be prepared to stand over both the reason for dismissal and the process followed at the time the decision is made. The unsavoury alternative is that the decision-maker may find themselves having to defend their position in the witness box before the WRC and in the court of public opinion.[3]

In the current climate, many employers will already be grappling with the difficult decision to implement redundancies across their organisation, and this trend is set to continue throughout the rest of 2026 and beyond. Decision-makers and HR professionals alike should take particular care to ensure that redundancy exercises are genuine, procedurally fair, and that a thorough and meaningful consultation process is carried out with the employee to determine whether there are any alternatives to the redundancy of their role.

For guidance in managing redundancies across your organisation, please contact Jeff Greene, Partner, Caoimhe Grogan, Associate or any member of the ALG Employment Team.