With redundancy activity unfortunately an inevitable consequence of COVID 19, as a number of businesses are unable to re-open or are now operating with fewer employees, it is critical that the redundancy process is managed in line with legislation and best HR practice to ensure that additional costs do not arise for employers for unfair dismissal claims due to unfair selection for redundancy.

Some useful lessons from this recent case in which a Solicitor was awarded €13,300 after her grievances were not dealt with properly by her new employer and she successfully claimed constructive dismissal.

The Complainant has been employed for almost four years before made redundant without notice, and 14 days after informing her employer that she was pregnant. The Complainant contended that she had been discriminated against on gender and family status grounds and had been dismissed by means of redundancy due to her pregnancy.

Despite current skills shortages and employment figures being close to full employment, redundancy related complaints still arise and two recent decision by the Labour Court and WRC, are an useful reminder for the need to apply correct and fair selection criteria and processes, when making employees redundant.

Another recent case dealing with the issue of the forced retirement of a legal secretary who had 40 years service, once again highlights the difficulties that employers face in implementing retirements, when they have not established a fixed retirement age, on objective grounds, either contractually or through custom and practice (Ref ADJ - 00016645).

A recent decision of an Adjudication Officer under the Employment Equality Acts 1998 - 2015 found that the Complainant had made a prima facie case of discrimination on grounds of gender, and had been dismissed due to her pregnancy and not due to reasons of redundancy as purported by the Respondent Company.The Complainant was awarded €14k compensation.

This recommendation by the Labour Court (LCR21798) is a very useful reminder about the significant potential cost of not adhering to fair procedures when terminating employment during the probationary period.

With the Christmas party season about to get underway this weekend, employers need to be aware of the potential costs of not dealing correctly with issues that may arise during workplace social events.

The determination published earlier this year in the SSP Ireland v Albert Fordjour provides some useful lessons for employers on the necessity of adopting fair procedures at all stages of the investigation and disciplinary processes and in particular around the interviewing of proposed witnesses (Ref UDD 1758).

The Labour Court recently rejected an appeal by a hotel worker that his summary dismissal for breach of IT & Security Policies was unfair and confirmed that the decision to dismiss was within the range of responses of a reasonable employer with regard to the employee's conduct and that his dismissal was not unfair (Determination UDD 1839).