1. Introduction

The case of Tracey Ring v Student Facilities & Services (UCC) DAC T/A Unisalon (ADJ-00037197) is widely regarded as the modern canonical statement of the requirements for a lawful redundancy process under the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 to 2014 and the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2015. The Adjudication Officer’s decision sets out a five-stage framework that has been repeatedly cited in subsequent WRC decisions.

This article addresses the Ring framework, the procedural minimum that an employer must observe, and the practical application of the framework in subsequent cases.

2. Legislation and Case Law

Section 7(2) of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 defines redundancy. The provision identifies five circumstances in which a dismissal is by reason of redundancy: where the employer has ceased or intends to cease to carry on the business; where the employer’s requirements for employees to carry out work of a particular kind have ceased or diminished or are expected to cease or diminish; where the employer has decided to carry on the business with fewer employees; where the employer has decided that the work shall henceforth be done in a different manner for which the employee is not sufficiently qualified or trained; or where the employer has decided that the work shall henceforth be done by a person who is also capable of doing other work for which the employee is not qualified or trained.

The High Court in JVC Europe Ltd v Ponisi [2012] E.L.R. 70 (Charlton J.) held: “In an unfair dismissal claim, where the answer is asserted to be redundancy, the employer bears the burden of establishing redundancy and of showing which kind of redundancy is apposite. Without that requirement, vagueness would replace the precision necessary to ensure the upholding of employee rights.”

Section 6(4)(c) of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 provides that a dismissal is deemed not to be unfair if it results wholly or mainly from the redundancy of the employee. Section 6(6) places the burden on the employer to demonstrate that the dismissal resulted wholly or mainly from such redundancy. Section 6(7) provides that, in determining whether the dismissal was unfair, regard may be had to the reasonableness or otherwise of the conduct of the employer in relation to the dismissal.

The Ring framework identifies five elements of a lawful redundancy process: notice that redundancy is being considered; consultation with the affected employees on the proposed redundancy; fair selection by reference to objective criteria; consideration of alternatives to redundancy; and a right of appeal against the redundancy decision.

Each element is essential. A redundancy process that lacks any of the five elements is, in general, procedurally defective and may give rise to a successful unfair dismissal complaint, even where the underlying redundancy is genuine. 

3. Decision

The Adjudication Officer in the Ring case considered a redundancy process that had been criticised on multiple grounds. The Adjudication Officer set out the five-stage framework and applied it to the facts of the case.

On notice, the Adjudication Officer examined whether the Complainant had been put on notice that her role was being considered for redundancy. The notice must be specific and must precede the consultation phase.

On consultation, the Adjudication Officer examined whether genuine consultation had taken place. Genuine consultation requires real engagement with the employee’s views and a willingness to alter the proposal in light of those views, not a perfunctory communication of a pre-determined outcome.

On selection, alternatives, and appeal, the Adjudication Officer examined the application of objective selection criteria (where applicable), the consideration of redeployment and other alternatives, and the provision of a meaningful right of appeal against the redundancy decision.

4. Takeaway

For employers, the Ring framework provides a clear template for the conduct of redundancy processes. The five elements should be embedded in any redundancy policy and observed in any redundancy process. Documentation of each stage is essential.

Notice should be provided in writing, identifying the role at risk and the reason for the consideration of redundancy. Consultation should provide genuine engagement, with at least two or three meetings and a willingness to consider proposals from the employee.

For employees in redundancy processes, the Ring framework provides a checklist for assessing the lawfulness of the process. Practitioners should examine whether each of the five elements has been satisfied, and should identify any failures as potential grounds for a complaint.

Where the redundancy is challenged, the employer’s ability to demonstrate compliance with each of the five elements is the foundation of the defence. A redundancy process that satisfies all five elements is, in general, defensible; one that fails any of the five may give rise to a successful complaint.

5. Further information

This article was prepared for informational purposes only. For further advice, please email enquiries@crushell.ie or contact the offices of Crushell & Co Solicitors.

6. About Crushell & Co

Crushell & Co is a specialist law firm focused on protecting and advancing the rights of employees in Ireland. We offer a nationwide service, advising individuals on a wide range of legal and regulatory issues arising at work, including employment law, employment immigration and workplace accidents and injuries.

We help employees understand their position and options by translating complex legal issues into clear, practical advice. Our approach is tailored to each client, ensuring that our strategy is aligned with their personal and professional circumstances.

Connect: @CrushellLaw or www.crushell.ie