Right to Statutory Redundancy Payment Distinct and Separate from Right to Redress Under Unfair Dismissals Act

Facts: The Complainant was a Fleet Training Manager who was employed with the Respondent for 15 years prior to his dismissal. The Covid-19 pandemic seriously affected the Respondent’s business. The Complainant was laid off on 16^th March 2020 and returned to work on 6^th July 2020. He was informed of a possible redundancy in September 2020 and an alternative role was mentioned but considered not to be appropriate. The Complainant was not made redundant at that time, but was laid off again in October 2020. He remained on lay off until his dismissal.

In May 2021, a further meeting was held and this time the Complainant was told that he was to be made redundant. No alternative roles were put to him or discussed.  He was offered statutory redundancy and it was clear by the end of this meeting that his redundancy was proceeding, and his role was not simply “at risk”. The Complainant gave evidence that certain aspects of his role were in fact going to continue and that he had not been provided with a new organigram of the company. In his evidence, he gave examples of other roles that he could have carried out, including in relation to CPC which had been part of his role. According to the Complainant, CPC training was now “out the door”. In contrast, the Respondent’s evidence was that there was no alternative role for the Complainant. The Complainant brought a claim for Unfair Dismissal under the Unfair Dismissals Acts (the “Acts”).

Read the full article here

Get the latest legal news and updates at Global Law Experts