The operators of the former Regency Hotel in Dublin have been ordered to pay €26,000 compensation to a former carpenter over a “sham redundancy” that was executed in a manner “that was both ruthless and dishonest”.
At the Workplace Relations Commission, Adjudicator John Harraghy has ordered Liffeyfield Ltd – which operates the four star Bonnington Hotel at Whitehall in Dublin – to pay €26,000 to Donal Finnegan after finding that Mr Finnegan was unfairly dismissed by way of redundancy on August 8, 2024.
The €26,000 award takes account of a redundancy payment of €8,002 paid to Mr Finnegan at the time.
Mr Harraghy has also ordered Liffeyfield Ltd to pay Mr Finnegan an additional €3,440 for a breach of Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 where he was not provided with his terms and conditions in a written contract of employment.
Notoriously, the Regency Hotel on Dublin’s north-side was the scene of the gangland murder of David Byrne in February 2016 that sparked a murderous feud between the Kinahan and Hutch organised crime groups.
The owners of the hotel, the McGettigan family, subsequently re-branded the hotel as the Bonnington and incorporated Liffeyfield Ltd in 2017 to operate the hotel.
In his findings, Mr Harraghy stated that he found Mr Finnegan’s dismissal “constituted a sham redundancy, executed in a manner that was both ruthless and dishonest, with no regard for the personal impact on the complainant”.
“The purported redundancy served merely as a pretext to justify the dismissal,” he said.
Mr Harraghy stated that he was further strengthened in his decision that the redundancy was not genuine, as the hotel firm “failed to follow fair procedures in affecting the dismissal”.
He also found that the absence of supporting evidence from the hotel firm, “coupled with the failure of the decision-maker and other key witnesses to attend and provide testimony at the WRC hearing, demonstrates a clear disregard for due process”.
“This conduct reflects not only procedural shortcomings but also an unequivocal and serious breach of the Respondent’s legal obligations,” he said.
Mr Harraghy stated that the firm submitted that Mr Finnegan’s redundancy resulted from the hotel company’s financial circumstances in 2024.
“However, I find that no evidence was provided to support this claim. The Respondent failed to produce any documentary evidence at the hearing to demonstrate that its financial position warranted the elimination of the Complainant’s role,” he said.
In evidence, Mr Finnegan stated that he commenced work for a Mr McGettigan in June 2018 in a Dublin City centre pub and moved to the Bonnington hotel in October 2018 after he had a discussion with Mr McGettigan.
Mr Finnegan stated that he was asked to a meeting on July 4, 2024 by HR coordinator Shane Mealaugh at the hotel.
Mr Finnegan attended the meeting alone and Mr Mealaugh told him that he had a letter to give him. He said that the hotel was in financial difficulties and he was handed the letter telling him that he was being made redundant and his employment would end on August 8, 2024.
Mr Finnegan gave evidence that this was the only contact he had in relation to his redundancy.
He stated that he was asked by a Derek Kirby from the hotel in February 2025 if he wanted a full time job.
Mr Finnegan told the hearing that he did not want to go back “after the way they threw me out”.
In his findings, Mr Harraghy stated when the hotel firm’s decision is objectively analysed in light of the shortcomings outlined above, “it becomes indisputable that the dismissal was neither valid nor fair”.
Mr Harraghy found that Mr Finnegan was not placed on notice that the hotel firm was considering redundancies within the hotel; was not informed that he was at risk of redundancy and no consideration appears to have been given to possible alternatives to redundancy.
Mr Harraghy also found that the hotel firm did not engage in any meaningful consultation with Mr Finnegan prior to the dismissal, thereby denying Mr Finnegan the opportunity to respond to the proposed redundancy or suggest alternatives.
He also found that the hotel firm did not apply a fair and objective selection process, nor did it provide adequate information on the criteria used to determine which roles were to be made redundant.
Mr Harraghy said he found that the employer did not consider suitable alternative employment within the hotel before proceeding with dismissal, as required by established principles of fair redundancy procedures.
“I find that the Complainant’s dismissal was neither fair nor transparent,” he stated.
At the WRC hearing, the hotel firm stated that it became clear to it that due to the unavailability of work and the finances of the organisation a decision was made to make the role of carpenter redundant.
The hotel firm submitted that Mr Finnegan was not unfairly selected for redundancy and that his role was no longer required.
The hearing was told that the hotel employs 110 staff, has 200 rooms, a pool and leisure centre and a conference centre.
Reporting by Gordon Deegan
