Sacked without warning or proper reason provided

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120296923#Comment_120296923

no, there must be some consultancy process.

Mrs OBumble

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120297012#Comment_120297012

Do you have a link for that?

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120297018#Comment_120297018

Not to hand.

spaceHopper

By now he will have seen a lawyer, there are two ways this can go, they settle or they go to court.

This isn't a redundancy, the meeting makes it clear he was personally selected and that he and not his role is been made redundant. They are offering ball bark 24k. He should push for more. Have they done redundancy before? At a minimum he should get the same. What did they offer. For manufacturing statutory + 2.5 weeks per a year is at the low end. If they got that, give their long service they would do OK until they got a new job. I'd suggest they let the lawyer handle it. Best case they can push for two years salary at the WRC or cour, anything lower that is a win for the company. If they go to court their name and the company's name will be in the papers, can they handle that?

I re read your first post, you said his house is at risk for other reasons. Has that anything to do with this event? Something isn't adding up?

2011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120297018#Comment_120297018

"Methods of selection

If a method for deciding redundancies has been agreed with a trade union, your employer should follow it. It is up to your employer which selection criteria they use, as long as they can show that they are fair and reasonable."

Link:

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/unemployment_and_redundancy/redundancy/redundancy_procedures.html

Wanderer2010

Maybe Fred is a bully or not liked by his workers? Maybe nobody who reports to him has any time for him or he makes people uncomfortable? It has happened in companies where enough people complain to HR or refuse to work for a certain person that they have to sit up and take notice. If it was one complaint they would brush it off but multiple complaints from people who dont want to work for Fred and hence affecting work output...

Im not saying they went about it the right way but maybe these complaints arent as baseless as they seem? After 20 years someones personality will definitely permeate a job, rightly or wrongly.

Sigma101

To be clear, this is not a case of redundancy and all discussions around redundancy payments are pointless. Based on the OP's description this is a summary dismissal with immediate effect. This can really only be justified by gross misconduct on the part of the employee.

Only gross misconduct could justify not adhering to fair procedure and the redundancy code of practice. Any payments made to the employee over and above what he earned up to the day of his final meeting would be beyond the employer's legal obligations. If gross misconduct can be proven then the employee isn't entitled to anything.

Based on the OP, there is clearly another employee, or employees involved. The employer has an obligation to its other employees also. If an employee felt unsafe at work as a result of harassment, violence, or threat of violence, for instance, the employer would be obliged to act immediately and an immediate dismissal could be justified. However, employers have been found to incorrectly apply summary dismissal procedures and to misinterpret the situations in which it can be applied. Hence the recommendation, first and foremost, to seek legal advice. If the employer did not follow the correct procedure, then it's a clear case of unfair dismissal.

Immediate dismissal is rare and most employers won't resort to it unless they feel they're on solid legal ground. I wouldn't like to speculate on what occurred before the final meeting, but I'm fairly certain that the OP is not in possession of all the facts here.

Oscar_Madison

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120296606#Comment_120296606

A few things come to mind:

1. ”Fred” might be a little economical with the facts- no one wants to be known as a person losing their job for gross misconduct after 20 years, especially if that conduct might be seeing as embarrassing in some way (say harassment or inappropriate comments, arriving drunk at work etc) - you save face by saying you’re been unfairly chosen for redundancy.
2. It might well be a sacking but the company are having pity and calling it a redundancy- something they can’t do and they’ll be found out eventually as this unfolds, especially when appealed to the WRC or wherever.
3. This may have been the cumulative meeting of many- again as you say, doesn’t sound like they’ve followed process but this issue could have been around for a while where he had a number of performance or whatever related conversations

In summary, either the company are highly incompetent and ignorant of HR due process (maybe you have a view on this?) or there’s a lot more than what you were told.

Either way, an employment lawyer and fast.

Xander10

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120297152#Comment_120297152

Yeah but OP says he has been getting positive annual appraisals for the last 20 years. Surely if there was an issue, you would have expected management to have at least had a friendly discussion on any issue?

Of course, it may have happened and Fred was blind to it. If he has outside issues with home, he could for example have being drinking a lot of late and this affected work performance.

But all guesswork. Based on OPs post, a route through a solicitor seems to be the only option.

growleaves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120295042#Comment_120295042

I'm only pointing out that Jim2007's logic is circular.

The company dismissing "Fred" is not in itself evidence that "Fred" has done something wrong.

2011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120297196#Comment_120297196

I have just read key parts of the formal settlement offer. It states that Fred is being made redundant.

Oscar_Madison

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120299070#Comment_120299070

Awfully strange so- they’re not following a redundancy process - I hope there’s a nice ka-ching at the end of all of this and the inevitable legal proceedings for “Fred” as it’s not the way to do things

I'd say you'd be better off not posting any more about "Fred" at this point.

thomas 123

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120294777#Comment_120294777

Likely a mess up by HR/Senior manager.

I was let go due to cuts and they were very careful not to say It was not down to any performance reasons.

I immediately got onto my solicitor and engaged the company only through them. Taking a case to the WRC costs a fortune, so if there is a semi decent settlement offer its almost always worth it - the company should also be asked to pay your solicitors fees if it does not go to the WRC.

Im my experience our employment laws mean very little to big business and really only the small business is bound by them due to financial constraints.

thomas 123

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120302725#Comment_120302725

Off topic but I remember, back when I was an idiot, my employer, a hotel -I did about 55 hours, helping with a massive event, got my payslip and all the overtime was not there - asked the payroll person - "oh we put that in for next week" - shock horror, no overtime and no hours the following week. Scum of the earth.

thomas 123

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120302725#Comment_120302725

I did scope out the WRC route and the time it would take vs how much money I had to keep my family and eye going vs the offer on the table made it impractical - companies know this very very well though and in my case probably had the offer calculated down to the cent with all that in mind.

Augme

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120296792#Comment_120296792

The understanding of the term instant dismissal is key here. Instant dismissal doesn't mean you can sack someone on the spot following any of the above occurring. Instant dismissal means that the person can be sacked without a prior formal warning. However, to legally sack someone you need to hold a hearing and investigate the facts before you can make a decision to sack someone. Any breach of this process will lead to a successful unfair dismissals claim.

ebbsy

Forget about the solicitor for the moment.

Pick a figure. Nett. Make it big in case you are batted down a bit.

Ask for that figure.

You never know.

BattleCorp

How did 'Fred' get on after?

2011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120437573#Comment_120437573

As this is now a legal matter I can't say much except that Fred has been offered a substantial severance package. Once this is wrapped up I will post what happened here.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120295101#Comment_120295101

This is standard practice in many businesses types.

2011

An agreement has just been reached between Fred and his former employer. This has yet to be drafted up and signed. Let’s just say that Fred has done very well out of this from a financial perspective and is very satisfied. Fred has a number of job offers on the table.

Hotblack Desiato

I wish "Fred" all the best, even if he gets himself sorted out with a good job soon and a substantial settlement into the bargain, and I hope he does both, it's still an extremely stressful situation to have to had to go through.

raclle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120439275#Comment_120439275

So he was made redundant? After all the stress they put the man through. What a **** company to have worked for

2011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120491269#Comment_120491269

It turns out that Fred was not the only one treated this way. It would seem that this company was not up to speed with how things work in Ireland, perhaps this behaviour worked for them in other countries.

The paperwork that Fred and the others signed states that they were being made redundant. Each individual signed it because they were offered a very attractive financial package to do so, way beyond the statutory minimum. All of these people have had no issue finding new employment.

In Fred's case he was able to produce decades of written appraisals, all of which were signed and all of which were overwhelmingly positive.

This has been a stressful time for all of those that were made redundant, but thankfully it worked out very well from a financial perspective.

In all cases were settled out of court, but the threat of court was required.

Jim2007

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120491269#Comment_120491269

Where in that paragraph did you find any mention of redundancy??? The company abruptly terminate his employment for reason neither of us are every going to know and compensated him for doing so. That is all we know. The paragraph you quoted states that the agreement has not yet even been drafted.

raclle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120491335#Comment_120491335

Post #43. I was only replying to the latest update which didn't necessarily have to mention the word redundancy.

TCP/IP

Congratulations OP on your new role and glad you received satisfactory financial compensation.

2011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120506619#Comment_120506619

Genuinely it’s not me, this all happened to a freind of mine. I’m an engineer, he is a manager. I would be delighted if it was me as I would be able to clear my mortgage 😀

But thank you, I will pass on your good wishes.

tinytobe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120491323#Comment_120491323

The problem is work and employment today is rarely about honesty, and even worse if or once HR is involved. HR is there to hire, to fire, and to keep any litigation issues away from the company. It's sadly nothing more. And some HR departments are there to blind employees pretending they are always there to talk, to listen to their concerns. That's total BS in reality, it's just a measure by HR to keep an ear out for any possible discontent.

To threaten them legally was the only answer in this case to achieve something. Rules are rules and the law is the law and a court would be a 3rd party taking a decision, HR wouldn't necessarily like.

The reason for leaving were probably constructed on behalf of the company with HR help. Redundancy or getting sacked for various other issues may be true or not. The fact that they offered a very attractive financial package would lead me to believe that they wanted him to accept it and go, wanted him not to put up any legal struggle and the fault of employer and employee going different ways wasn't the employee's fault. If he "Fred" portrayed gross misconduct on the job then they would hardly have offered him any financial package.

Good to hear that he could find alternative employment.