Woman made redundant from Kerry firm run by estranged husband awarded €11k

The WRC adjudicator concluded that the marital breakdown had 'a significant part to play' in Amanda McKeown being selected for redundancy.

A woman who was part-owner of a Kerry-based retrofitting company has been awarded over €11,000 after the Workplace Relations Commission ruled her marital breakdown was a factor in her being unfairly dismissed from the firm run by her estranged husband.

The WRC found Amanda McKeown was unfairly made redundant from her role in Retrofit Design Ltd of Killorglin, Co Kerry after working in the company for over nine years.

Ms McKeown worked in accounts and was the company secretary and a director of Retrofit Design as well as being a 50% shareholder in the business together with her now estranged husband, David McKeown, with whom she established the company in 2009.

The mother of two said she had suffered significant financial hardship as a result of a contrived redundancy which resulted in her being unfairly dismissed from her position which carried an annual salary of €36,524.

The WRC heard she had effectively received no wages since being laid off in March 2020 before being made redundant in November 2022.

Evidence

In evidence to the WRC, Ms McKeown claimed she was also removed as company director and secretary without her knowledge by the firm’s general manager, Chris Scanlon, in August 2021.

She said her removal from these roles as well as her subsequent redundancy were motivated by and instigated following the breakdown of her marriage.

Ms McKeown claimed that she was subjected to a gradual and deliberate exclusion from the workplace, while no alternatives to making her redundant were considered.

She said elements of her role were given to a newer employee to create a situation where her redundancy could be justified.

Ms McKeown accepted she had been temporarily laid off in March 2020 due to the pandemic.

However, she said she was forced to take up part-time work in a local shop in September 2021 after she received no notification when the period of lay-off would conclude and she had no financial support from her husband.

She said another worker who had been laid off had returned to work on a part-time basis in July 2020.

Ms McKeown said she felt she was still working remotely for the company as she was a signatory to the company’s bank account and was receiving requests from Mr Scanlon to provide him with paperwork.

The WRC heard that Mr Scanlon had lodged forms with the Companies Registration Office on August 1, 2021 without her knowledge to remove her as secretary and director from Retrofit Design.

Ms McKeown said she had concluded that Mr Scanlon would only have done so on instructions from her husband.

She described how she found the locks of the premises had been changed the following month when she tried to deliver correspondence to the business.

Ms McKeown said she heard nothing further until April 2022 when she was informed that her role was being made redundant.

She claimed no genuine efforts were made to find her alternative work within the company and that the firm had acted retrospectively to suggest it had engaged in such a process.

She pointed out the company had already removed her without her knowledge as a bank account signatory in June 2022.

However, Retrofit Design claimed a genuine redundancy existed as Mr Scanlon and another employee found they were capable of taking over her duties.

Redundancy process

The WRC heard that the company had experienced badly squeezed profit margins during the pandemic and redundancies were necessary with several staff being let go during 2021 and 2022.

The company claimed Ms McKeown’s marital difficulties were not relevant to the redundancy process which was overseen by Mr Scanlon without any involvement from the complainant’s husband.

In evidence, Mr Scanlon said Mr McKeown was fully aware of what he was considering but had no part in the decision.

In his ruling WRC adjudication officer Peter O’Brien said he was satisfied from the evidence that the possibility of a genuine redundancy of Ms McKeown’s position existed.

Mr O’Brien said he was also satisfied that Ms Scanlon had acted in a bona fide way in assessing the situation and concluding that her role could be absorbed by others as well as that the company had engaged in a professional redundancy process.

However, he said the fact that Ms McKeown was a joint owner of the firm and a company director also had to be considered.

Mr O’Brien said it was inconceivable that the redundancy of a 50% shareholder and director of the business was a decision taken solely by Mr Scanlon and not a matter debated and agreed upon at a board meeting.

“The complainant would have been able to veto this decision if it had been brought up at a board meeting,” said Mr O’Brien.

“In effect Mr Scanlon was making an owner of the business employing him redundant,” he added.

Mr O’Brien said it was very difficult to accept that her estranged husband had no involvement or knowledge of what was happening.

While a redundancy may have been warranted, the WRC said the process to make the decision was flawed due to the unique situation of Ms McKeown being a joint shareholder and director with no efforts being taken to find her alternative roles or reduced hours.

Mr O’Brien said the only logical conclusion was that Mr Scanlon was acting on Mr McKeown’s instructions to remove his wife as director and company secretary.

The WRC adjudicator concluded that the marital breakdown had “a significant part to play” in Ms McKeown being selected for redundancy.

Mr O’Brien said it would be difficult to imagine that she would have been made redundant if her marriage had not broken down.

Although Ms McKeown had sought the maximum level of compensation of two years' salary of approximately €72,000, the WRC ruled that it should be €25,000 less her redundancy payment of €13,932 due to the possibility that redundancy might have been justified “in normal circumstances".