WRC Case – Redundancy Scenario

A recent WRC adjudication has highlighted the risks employers face when redundancies are not supported by a genuine business rationale and meaningful consultation.

A Dublin-based Academy has found itself in difficulty following a collective redundancy process that was ultimately deemed to be a “sham” redundancy exercise.

One former employee, among a number who have brought claims against the Academy, was awarded €34,435.00 after the WRC concluded that her dismissal was not a genuine redundancy.

The complainant commenced employment with the Academy in August 2022 and accepted redundancy in February 2025.

For reference, the full decision can be viewed here: ADJ-00057864.

What happened?

Following a change of ownership in November 2024, the Academy acknowledged that it was experiencing serious financial difficulties and struggling to remain solvent.

The respondent commenced a collective consultation process with employees in February 2025.

However, the complainant argued that it quickly became apparent that the process was not a genuine redundancy exercise but rather an attempt to remove higher-paid teachers from the organisation.

The complainant stated that she was offered the opportunity to remain employed on a lower salary while continuing to perform substantially the same role.

She further alleged that the Academy was openly advertising lower-paid teaching positions during the consultation process. According to the complainant, this demonstrated that the requirement for the role itself continued to exist and that the Academy was simply attempting to replace existing employees with new hires on less favourable terms and conditions.

The complainant also argued that meaningful consultation was never intended, noting that various operational changes, including unpaid breaks and other less favourable terms, had already been introduced as “non-negotiable” before the consultation process concluded.

The Respondent’s Position

The respondent denied that the redundancy process was a sham.

It argued that the measures implemented reflected the economic realities facing the Academy and were necessary to ensure the business remained financially viable.

The respondent maintained that the restructuring and redundancy proposals were driven by genuine business needs arising from the organisation’s financial position.

The WRC’s Findings

Having considered the evidence, the WRC Adjudicator concluded that the respondent had failed to establish a legitimate objective justification for the redundancy process.

The Adjudicator found that no genuine redundancy situation had been demonstrated and that redundancy had instead been used as a mechanism to reduce wage costs.

The fact that lower-paid employees were being recruited to perform similar work significantly undermined the respondent’s position that the roles themselves were no longer required.

As a result, the complainant’s dismissal was deemed to be unfair, and compensation of €34,435.00 was awarded.

What can employers learn from this?

This decision serves as an important reminder that redundancy must relate to the role, not the individual occupying it.

Employers cannot use redundancy as a mechanism to replace higher-paid employees with lower-paid alternatives simply to reduce payroll costs.

The decision also reinforces the importance the WRC places on:

• Having a genuine business rationale for redundancy
• Being able to objectively justify the need for role reductions
• Meaningful consultation with affected employees
• Proper redundancy selection processes
• Considering alternatives before redundancy is confirmed
• Demonstrating that the role itself is genuinely no longer required

Where employers cannot demonstrate these elements, they may be exposed to claims of unfair dismissal.

Practical steps for employers

Establish a genuine business justification

Before commencing any redundancy process, employers should ensure that there is a legitimate and objectively justifiable business reason for reducing roles.

Use a fair selection process

Where multiple employees perform similar roles, a properly completed selection matrix can help demonstrate that decisions were made fairly and objectively.

Engage in meaningful consultation

Consultation should be genuine and should take place before final decisions are made. Employees must have an opportunity to engage with and influence the process.

Consider alternatives to redundancy

Employers should explore all reasonable alternatives before proceeding with dismissal, including redeployment, reduced hours, temporary measures or other cost-saving initiatives.

Seek advice before taking action

Redundancy processes can be complex and carry significant legal risk. Employers should seek HR advice before commencing any restructuring exercise.

The Key Lesson for Employers

Redundancy should never be used as a tool to simply reduce wage costs or replace higher-paid employees with lower-paid alternatives.

Employers must be able to demonstrate a genuine business need for redundancy, follow fair procedures and engage in meaningful consultation throughout the process.

For advice on redundancy processes, collective consultation requirements or restructuring exercises, contact The HR Company before taking action.