Sacked without warning or proper reason provided

+1 the above.

The terms of the settlement should be WAAYYY better than statutory minimum, and include a positive written reference and on-going willingness to act as a referee.

People can't be made redundant, roles are. If his role is redundant they must tell him that, which they didn't. They asked him to "Step aside" and indicated that there are issues with him personally, rather than the role he occupies.

So legally speaking there is absolutely nothing pointing to redundancy here.

Fred needs to put all communication on record now. It's too late now but at the time of the initial interview and HR being present he should have requested a union rep if he's in one and if not you can still request one.

A **** situation but as above they'll likely put it down to redundancy. HR will likely forget the complaints from colleagues remark

typing bad - sorry -wonky hand

And there's previous case law that says you can't sack an employee for performance issues (gross negligence/behavior aside) without giving them an opportunity to rectify the issue(s) first

IIRC, the WRC can award up to two years pay as compensation. Statutory redundancy for 20 years work would be 41 weeks pay (2 weeks per year of service, plus a week, and capped at 600 euro a week)

Depending on tax situation, WRC may be preferable.

M.

It is not irrelevant at all and that is speaking from experience. Regardless of who he pissed off there is a process to follow unless it's some **** show of a company and with him being there 20 years I doubt it is.

Why would the unions be irrelevant ? Surely not !

100% incorrect. Plenty of managers are union members. Obviously I can't speak for the person concerned but plenty of managers all over Ireland are union members.

The company haven’t followed the process for redundancy in Ireland so that’s the first thing. Part of this process is exploring alternative work or roles within the firm.

It wasn’t a disciplinary hearing either and again no process followed.

The fact a “HR Manager” was present along with a chief big wig surprises me- even the most idiotic HR manager wouldn’t risk such a farce taking place- if they gave advice to conduct this meeting this way, they may not be HR Manager for much longer.

However, I’m wondering are you getting the whole story from “Fred” OP? With 20 years service I’m assuming this is a reputable company and professionals working there? Could you even indicate the industry?

Assuming the above, somethings not right- in general, even when you see companies unfairly sack someone, they tend to put up at least an effort of a charade- it doesn’t seem like that to me. If it’s a restaurant or pub or a nite club I’d probably go yeah, it wouldn’t be far off what to expect but I’m assuming this is a proper corporate or similar?

From Citizen's Advice:

As someone else said, tell your friend to get some legal advice, and leave it at that. Nobody here can tell if the employer acted inappropriately.

Not always, depends on the number of redundancies.

Do you have a link for that?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.