ADJ-00041089 - Workplace Relations Commission Sean Dillon v Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI)

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 03 April 2023
• Court: Workplace Relations Commission
• Docket Number: ADJ-00041089
• Hearing Date: 10 March 2023
• Respondent: Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI)

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint. In the instant case, there was one party only as the Respondent did not attend. The hearing was conducted in person in Lansdowne House.

I explained the procedural changes arising from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v. An Adjudication Officer, Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 in April 2021. No application was made that the hearing be conducted other than in public. The Complainant agreed to proceed in the knowledge that a decision issuing from the WRC would disclose his identity. The Complainant gave evidence by affirmation.

While the parties are named in the Decision, I will refer to Mr Sean Dillon as “the Complainant” and the Royal National Lifeboat Institution as “the Respondent”.

The Complainant attended the hearing and represented himself. The Respondent did not attend and was not represented at the hearing.

The Complainant was a litigant in person and did not have the benefit of legal representation. Accordingly, at the outset of the hearing I explained to him that my consideration of his complaint would focus on the following lines of inquiry:

1. Was the dismissal a genuine redundancy?
2. Was the Complainant fairly selected for this redundancy?
3. Was the manner of dismissal fair and reasonable?

I can confirm I have fulfilled my obligation to make all relevant inquiries into this complaint.

No issues as to my jurisdiction to hear the complaint were raised at any stage of the proceedings.

Background:

On 08/01/2018 the Complainant commenced working in his role in with the Respondent. The Respondent is the largest charity that saves lives at sea around the coasts of the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, as well as one some independent waterways. The Complainant’s title was Lifesaving Manager Ireland. The Complainant’s area of responsibility comprised the island of Ireland together with the Isle of Man initially. The Isle of Man subsequently fell under the remit of his colleague Lifesaving Manager Wales. The Complainant’s salary was typically €7,300.00 per month (gross). The Complainant alleges he was unfairly dismissed by reason of unfair selection for redundancy. The Complainant submitted comprehensive documentation in advance of the hearing between the lodging of the complaint and up to the date of the hearing. The Complainant provided a detailed statement of the specific details of his complaint on the WRC complaint form. He provided a very helpful complaint timeline. I have carefully reviewed all the Complainant’s submissions and I have extrapolated the core issues as summarised below.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent at the hearing. I note the Respondent has not filed any rebuttal submissions or documentation. In the circumstances, no evidence has been proffered on behalf of the Respondent.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The events leading to the Complainant’s dismissal were set out in the WRC complaint form and in his written submissions to the WRC. Further detail was provided by the Complainant in evidence during hearing. Employment History: The Complainant commenced in his role with the Respondent in 2018. The title of his role was Lifesaving Manager Ireland and there were five colleagues in similar roles across the Respondent organisation. There was a Lifesaving Manager in Scotland, Wales and England had three Lifesaving Managers as it was divided into three regions, North East, South West and South East respectively. The Complainant at hearing described his role as autonomous but not independent in what he defined as a UK focused organisation. A previous iteration of his job title was that of Divisional Operations Manager. Appointment of new CEO: The Respondent appointed a new CEO, Mr Mark Dowie, (hereafter MD) on or about two years after the Complainant commenced in his role. The Complainant submits MD indicated an intention to elevate the standing of the Lifesaving Manager role in the organisation. The Complainant submits MD wanted to address the dysfunctional nature of his senior management structure and the inability of HQ to support the country regions. Among MD’s goals was the creation of a leaner, flatter structure at the top as opposed to the current (at that time) hierarchical bureaucratic structure. MD’s Devolution Strategy: MD aspired to devolve more operational autonomy from the Respondent HQ in Poole to the country regions. To this end MD directed the six Lifesaving Managers included among which is the Complainant to design and apply a revised structure which he as CEO would implement in order to set in place a framework upon which the country regions could operate in a more effective manner without the bottleneck of the existing HQ structure. During hearing the Complainant used the analogy of “turkeys voting for Christmas” to describe little did they realise at that time the potential outcome of designing a new structure and the ensuing ramifications for them. This task was completed successfully by the Lifesaving Managers and passed to MD to implement throughout the organisation. As part of his strategy MD had decided the title of the role should reflect this devolution from the centre to the regions. Accordingly, the title would change from Lifesaving Manager to that of Head of Region. In the case of the Complainant that would see Lifesaving Manager Ireland becoming Head of Region Ireland. The Lifesaving Managers commenced to put into effect the new ways of operating which the Complainant described in direct evidence as Phase 1. With the advent of Covid for a period of two years the regions had to operate even more autonomously particularly in the context of the different public health measures in the regions. The Complainant submits it was widely acknowledged by the Board, Trustees and MD that the regions were hugely successful, especially Ireland given it was entirely independent of the UK Public Health Structures. The Complainant submits that when it came what he describes as Phase 2 which was the formal implementation of the revised structure, MD disappeared from the process and left the technicalities to the HR Team having left the Lifesaving Managers to operate as Head of Regions throughout Covid without properly affirming the enhanced elevated status of the role. The Complainant submits as it got closer to launching the revised structure MD seemed to back off from the original idea that the six would automatically assume the new title and MD began to pitch the idea to them that it would be an open interview competition and the six would have to “earn the right to title”. The Complainant submits there was precedent in the organisation of situations where there is little change to a role and the incumbents simply stepped across into the role. The Complainant submits MD informed him HR had directed that it should be done this way (interview process). The Complainant submits MD assured him he had nothing to fear and if indeed there would be an open competition that he, the Complainant, was “lengths ahead in the field”. The Complainant submits he raised some concerns with MD about some of the recruitment practices in the Respondent organisation and given that MD’s strategy to devolve to the regions had many detractors in the Respondent HQ he, the Complainant, feared all six would be very exposed in an interview situation. MD assured the Complainant he “would be all over any interview situation” and he would “make damn sure everything was transparent”. The Complainant submits MD advised him to start thinking about how he would sell himself in an interview for the Head of Region Ireland job. The Complainant submits the combined collective position of the Lifesaving Manager cohort at that time was that it would all depend on the new role profile and if the role were substantially different some form of internal interview process might be reasonable but if the roles were identical or almost identical either in design or intent and they were already performing at the required level, then it would be completely unfair to put them “at risk” in the context of the...