A woman employed by a finance transaction company has been awarded more than €57,000 after she made a complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act that the termination of her role had been a “sham”.
The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) heard the complainant, Catherine Branagan, was a processing clerk in the quality department at Exela Technologies Ltd in 2014 — then known as Banktec — and when her role was made redundant in September 2020. Her salary was €57,225.
She had been employed by AIB from 1979 as a senior bank official and transferred to Exela in March 2014.
Exela said Ms Branagan was fairly selected for redundancy and that she showed no interest in an identified alternative role, that she was afforded the right to fair procedures and that her dismissal was not unfair.
Donald Clarke: What kind of Christmas songs are Jingle Bells and Winter Wonderland? Funny you should ask
A Dublin scam: After more than 10 years in New York, nothing like this had ever happened to me
The top 25 women’s sporting moments of the year: top spot revealed with Katie Taylor, Rhasidat Adeleke and Kellie Harrington featuring
Former Tory minister Steve Baker: ‘Ireland has been treated badly by the UK. It’s f**king shaming’
Cian Conboy, for the respondent, Exela, said that because of the cessation of some client work and the general decline in business during 2020, the respondent had to “right-size” its business. This resulted in the redundancy of 107 jobs in the UK and 27 jobs in the Republic.
There were two similar positions at risk concerning the Irish branch relating to Ms Branagan, who wanted to keep her job and who was “thrilled” when her colleague decided to accept redundancy.
However, her colleague then received an email telling her that she was not going to be made redundant.
Ms Branagan said that she could not believe the decision and that a couple of hours later, she received an email telling her that she wasn’t a suitable match for the remaining job. Ms Branagan was told she would be made redundant if she wasn’t interested in one of two part-time jobs. Ms Branagan said she “knew” these roles were not available. In August, she got an email telling her that only one of these jobs was now an option.
Ms Branagan claimed the redundancy was a “sham” and that the selection process was unfair and “subjective”.
Lawyers for Ms Branagan argued that “the sole intention of the redundancy process was to remove the complainant [Ms Branagan] from her role in order to maximise cost efficiency” because she was paid substantially more than her colleague.
Why are European stocks struggling? / Streaming services weigh up ads
Investors are worried about energy prices, with those worries reflected in a series of bad sessions for European stocks this week.To understand what's happening, Ciaran is joined by Aidan Donnelly, Associate Director at Davy Global Fund Management.And Eoin Burke-Kennedy on new analysis from the UK that suggests staggering inflation of over 18% could be possible there. Could it happen here?Plus, Laura Slattery on moves by big streaming services like Netflix and Disney+ to run advertising on its services, with more expensive payment tiers for those who want to keep an ad-free experience. Will it rub consumers up the wrong way?
Ms Branagan’s lawyers said that with 80 employees in its Dublin office, Exela narrowed its redundancy option to just two people, done to target the complainant. Her solicitor, Finian Finn, claimed the categorisation of the complainant’s role as “falling within UK operations was completely arbitrary”. He said her work had no UK element, her line manager was Dublin-based and she had worked in Dublin for 41 years.
Ms Branagan said that in her time in the sector she was used to dealing with changes in her job. She said that in 2019, she and her colleague were trained in how to do their work differently and to a higher standard.
Exela said it would have taken about 16 weeks for Ms Branagan to reach the same standard as her colleague.
WRC adjudicating officer Catherine Byrne said in her decision: “With training, the complainant would have been capable of doing the job that remained. In every redundancy situation, it is incumbent on an employer to try to preserve the jobs of employees who opt to remain in employment. In the case of this employee, as she was aged around 60, it must have been apparent to her managers that she was unlikely to find a job with the same salary before she reached pension age. It seems to me that, faced with a willing leaver, some element of subjectivity resulted in the decision.”
Ms Byrne said Exela had acted “unreasonably by selecting the complainant for redundancy because a solution was available when her colleague applied to leave”.
Ms Byrne decided Ms Branagan be awarded €57,225, the equivalent of one year’s pay.
