{"id":52048,"date":"2025-09-15T14:24:55","date_gmt":"2025-09-15T14:24:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/developments\/?post_type=legal_developments&p=52048"},"modified":"2025-09-15T14:25:01","modified_gmt":"2025-09-15T14:25:01","slug":"wrc-condemns-sham-redundancy-carried-out-by-football-club-in-ruthless-and-dishonest-manner","status":"publish","type":"legal_developments","link":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/developments\/thought-leadership\/wrc-condemns-sham-redundancy-carried-out-by-football-club-in-ruthless-and-dishonest-manner\/","title":{"rendered":"WRC Condemns Sham Redundancy Carried out by Football Club in \u201cRuthless and Dishonest Manner\u201d"},"content":{"rendered":"

David Henderson v The Bohemian Football Club CLG<\/em><\/strong> (<\/em><\/strong>ADJ-<\/em><\/strong>00056820<\/em><\/strong>) <\/em><\/strong>concerned an employee of the Respondent football club who claimed he was unfairly dismissed in a sham redundancy process, in the absence of any fair procedures. The Complainant submitted his complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission (\u201cWRC\u201d) under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977-2015.<\/p>\n

Facts<\/strong>: The Complainant gave evidence to the WRC of his involvement in various aspects of football in Ireland and abroad as a player, scout and coach. His most recent period of employment with the Respondent commenced on 1st<\/sup> January 2023. He described carrying out various roles for the Respondent including head of recruitment, men\u2019s first team goalkeeper coach, women\u2019s first team coach, chief scout for the Academy and liaison with the Respondent\u2019s partner club. According to the Complainant the League of Ireland season had ended in November 2024, and no issues had been raised with him. On 30th<\/sup> November 2024 during a phone call with the Respondent\u2019s Director of Football he was informed his employment was being terminated.<\/p>\n

The Complainant submitted to the WRC that during this phone call the Director of Football initially referred to budgeting issues when he informed him of his dismissal but when pressed he referenced \u201canonymous verbal complaints\u201d and a \u201chistoric letter of complaint\u201d. Following his dismissal the Complainant wrote to the Director of Football requesting clarification and evidence of these allegations, but he received no response. He then wrote to the Respondent\u2019s Board of Management, who refused to provide specific details. The Complainant, concerned for his reputation and professional standing, escalated his concerns to the FAI. In January the FAI confirmed to the Complainant that the Respondent had informed them that no letter of complaint ever existed.<\/p>\n

The Respondent\u2019s President gave evidence to the WRC that the football club had experienced significant losses in 2023 and the projected losses for 2024 had come to fruition. He stated that the budget for 2025 was reviewed in October\/November 2024 and cutbacks were required. He submitted that the decision to make the Complainant\u2019s role redundant was made at a board meeting in early November 2024 where it was decided the recruitment role was not needed. The Respondent\u2019s Director of Football was instructed to inform the Complainant that his \u201cservices were no longer required and that his services were being dispensed with\u201d. <\/em><\/p>\n

Decision: <\/strong>The Adjudicator, Christina Ryan, found the Complainant was unfairly dismissed from his employment. Under the Unfair Dismissals Acts the dismissal of an employee is deemed not<\/em> to be unfair if it results wholly or mainly from redundancy. However, the Adjudicator found there was no evidence before the WRC to support this contention. The Adjudicator noted no documentary evidence was adduced to substantiate the Respondent\u2019s assertions regarding the financial position of the football club and that there was a \u201cmarked absence\u201d of any minutes from the board of management meeting where the decision to make the Complainant\u2019s role redundant was made. The Adjudicator commented it was difficult to reconcile how the Complainant\u2019s role, in particular, was identified for redundancy when the President could not give evidence on all the functions the Complainant carried out for the Respondent save to say \u201crecruitment\u201d.<\/p>\n

The Adjudicator was critical of the issues of misconduct referenced by the Director of Football which went un-investigated and uncorroborated, calling them a \u201cgross fabrication<\/em>\u201d. She expressed her astonishment that the Respondent\u2019s President confirmed in evidence at the hearing that no letter of complaint ever existed. It was also not disputed by the Respondent\u2019s President that the Complainant was not put on notice that redundancies were being considered by the Respondent or that he was at risk of redundancy. The President also confirmed no consultation process was carried out and no possible alternatives to redundancy were considered. The Adjudicator commented that the Respondent showed a \u201ccavalier disregard for due process and an unmitigated disregard for the law<\/em>\u201d and found the Complainant\u2019s dismissal \u201cwas nothing more than a sham redundancy carried out in a ruthless and dishonest manner without a single thought for the personal damage the Respondent was inflicting on the Complainant<\/em>\u201d.<\/p>\n

The Adjudicator noted that the preferred remedy was compensation and was satisfied the Complainant\u2019s efforts to mitigate his ongoing losses were reasonable. Under the Unfair Dismissal Acts an Adjudicator can award compensation for a Complainant\u2019s loss of earnings not exceeding 104 weeks\/ 2 years\u2019 gross remuneration. The Complainant earned \u20ac250 net per week, which was referred to in the decision, and the \u00a0Adjudicator awarded \u20ac26,000 as compensation for the unfair dismissal. It is unclear whether it is a coincidence that this figure amounts to 104 weeks of the Complainant\u2019s weekly net<\/em> salary. The WRC decision is also silent on whether the Complainant received his statutory redundancy pay or contractual notice pay. However the Adjudicator noted the award was the upper limit of what she was in a position to award and that it was \u201cjust and equitable having regard to all the circumstances<\/em>\u201d.<\/p>\n

It is worth noting that since the release of this WRC decision a spokesperson for the Respondent football club gave a statement to the Irish press that it fully accepts the decision and apologises unreservedly to Mr Henderson.<\/p>\n

Takeaway for Employers<\/strong>: This case is a stark reminder to employers of their legal obligations in Ireland. An employer cannot escape their obligations under the Unfair Dismissal Acts by simply calling what is otherwise an unfair dismissal \u201ca redundancy\u201d. There is an onus of proof on employers to show a genuine redundancy situation existed and that their conduct was reasonable by engaging in a fair consultation process with the employee. As the Adjudicator quoted in her decision (from a significant judgment in this area, JVC Europe Ltd v. Ponisi [2012] E.L.R. 70<\/em><\/strong>)<\/em> \u201cwithout that requirement, vagueness would replace the precision necessary to ensure the upholding of employee rights\u201d.<\/em><\/p>\n

Apart from the blatant lack of procedural fairness in this case, it is interesting that the Respondent\u2019s lack of documentary evidence was highlighted by the Adjudicator. Readers are reminded of a recent WRC decision covered in our AOC April Newsletter<\/a> where the WRC found that redundancy was used as a \u201ccloak\u201d to exit a senior employee and highlighted the absence of minutes from the senior management meeting where the decision to make the role redundant was made. Respondents are now often required to provide this type of evidence at WRC hearings to show that the redundancy was legitimate and that proper procedures were observed.<\/p>\n

Link –<\/strong> https:\/\/www.workplacerelations.ie\/en\/cases\/2025\/july\/adj-00056820.html<\/a><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/u><\/p>\n

Authors \u2013 Tara Kelly and Anne O\u2019Connell <\/em><\/p>\n

31st<\/sup> July 2025<\/p>\n

Anne O\u2019Connell Solicitors<\/strong><\/p>\n

19-22 Lower Baggot Street<\/p>\n

Dublin 2.<\/p>\n

www.aocsolicitors.ie<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","class_list":["post-52048","legal_developments","type-legal_developments","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/developments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/legal_developments\/52048","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/developments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/legal_developments"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/developments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/legal_developments"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/developments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=52048"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}