1. Introduction
The case of David Henderson v The Bohemian Football Club Company Limited by Guarantee (ADJ-00056820), decided in July 2025, is a striking example of the WRC’s willingness to award the upper limit of compensation available to it where a redundancy is found to be a sham. The Adjudication Officer awarded the Complainant €26,000 having found that the dismissal of the Complainant by reason of redundancy was “nothing more than a sham redundancy carried out in a ruthless and dishonest manner”.
The Complainant began his employment with the Respondent on 1 January 2023, occupying multiple roles for the club: head of recruitment, men’s first team goalkeeper coach, women’s first team coach, chief scout for the Academy, and liaison with the club’s partner club. He earned €250 net per week. On 30 November 2024, he received a phone call from the Respondent’s Director of Football informing him that he was being removed from his position. The asserted reasons changed during the call: initially budgetary issues were cited, then anonymous verbal complaints and a historic letter of complaint. The Respondent later confirmed at hearing that no such letter ever existed.
2. Legislation and Case Law
Section 6(1) of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 establishes the presumption that the dismissal of an employee is unfair unless, having regard to all the circumstances, there were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal. Section 6(4)(c) 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 of proof on the employer.
Section 7(2) of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 defines the circumstances in which a dismissal will be treated as one by reason of redundancy. The leading authority on the burden on the employer in unfair dismissal claims where redundancy is asserted is the High Court decision 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 opposite.”
Where the employer establishes a genuine redundancy situation, the Section 6(4)(c) defence is engaged. However, the dismissal may still be unfair if the manner in which the redundancy was effected was procedurally unfair. The Section 6(7) test — reasonableness of the employer’s conduct — requires the employer to demonstrate adequate consultation, fair selection criteria, consideration of alternatives, and a right of appeal.
On compensation, Section 7(1)(c)(i) provides for a ceiling of 104 weeks’ remuneration. The Labour Court has emphasised in cases including Obasanjo Olajubu v Wasdell Europe (UDD2449) that the compensation must be in an amount that is just and equitable in all the circumstances, with latitude for both mitigating and aggravating factors.
3. Decision
The Adjudication Officer (Christina Ryan) found that the Respondent had failed to discharge the burden under Section 6(6). The evidence in support of a genuine redundancy situation was wholly inadequate. The Respondent’s President was unable to describe precisely what functions the Complainant carried out for the Respondent, despite his having been involved in the decision to terminate the Complainant’s employment. There was no documentary evidence of the financial position of the Respondent. There were no minutes of any Board meeting at which the decision had been taken.
More fundamentally, the asserted reasons for dismissal had shifted in the telling. The initial communication to the Complainant referenced “budgeting issues”. When pressed, the Director of Football accepted that this did not make sense given the Complainant’s modest weekly wage. The Director then referenced anonymous verbal complaints and a historic letter of complaint, neither of which had been investigated or corroborated, and the existence of which was ultimately denied by the Respondent’s President at the WRC.
The Adjudication Officer found that the allegations were “a gross fabrication designed to, for whatever reason, get rid of the Complainant” and that there was no evidence to support the contention that a genuine redundancy situation existed.
On procedural fairness, the Adjudication Officer noted a comprehensive list of failings: no notice that redundancies were being considered; no notice of being at risk; no consultation; no consideration of alternatives; no opportunity to make proposals; and no forewarning of the dismissal. The Adjudication Officer found that the Respondent had shown “a cavalier disregard for due process”. Compensation of €26,000 was awarded, expressly described as the upper limit available given the Complainant’s modest remuneration.
4. Takeaway
The case is one of the strongest recent illustrations of the WRC’s willingness to look behind a redundancy label and assess the substance of the employer’s conduct. Where the asserted reasons shift, where no documentary record supports the redundancy, and where allegations of misconduct are introduced without investigation, the redundancy defence will be rejected and the dismissal will be found to be unfair.
For employers, the practical lessons are stark. First, a redundancy decision must be capable of being substantiated by reference to the role and to the financial or operational rationale for the dismissal. Second, the redundancy process must follow the five-stage template of notice, consultation, fair selection, consideration of alternatives, and appeal. Third, where misconduct concerns exist, they must be raised, investigated and addressed through a separate disciplinary process.
Employers should also be alert to the use of “services no longer required”-type language. That formulation, evocative of a peremptory dismissal, sits uneasily with the procedural requirements of a lawful redundancy and is likely to invite WRC scrutiny.
For employees, the case demonstrates that the WRC will examine the consistency of the employer’s asserted rationale, the documentary record (or absence of it), and the procedural conduct of the dismissal. Inconsistencies between the explanations given over time, as in this case, can be powerful evidence of a sham.
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.wordpress-576593-6594403.cloudwaysapps.com
