LCR23199

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

 (Referral under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969)

BACKGROUND:

The Worker referred this case to the Labour Court on 15th May 2025 in accordance with Section 20 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, and agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.

A Labour Court hearing took place on 21st November 2025

RECOMMENDATION:

The Worker commenced employment with this Employer on the 16 September 2024 on a six-month full-time contract. He was unilaterally dismissed by the Employer on 5 January 2025 when he received a text message informing him there was no work for him.

 The Worker stated that after a month in employment his hours were reduced from a five-day week to a four-day week without any consultation with him and another part-time employee was given his Friday hours. He stated that he enjoyed the job and was involved in teaching swimming lessons and helping in the gym as well as maintenance of the swimming pool and gym. He confirmed that he stayed on after his shift ended if there was work to be done. The hotel began renovations in December 2024, and he took on the responsibility to act as a porter until 11.00pm even though the gym closed at 9.00pm. On 5 January 2025 at 11.43 am his manager texted to say that there was no work for him as the leisure centre was very quiet. This was less than 24 hours’ notice as he was due to work on the Monday 6 and Tuesday 7 January 2025 commencing at 7.00am. he understood that this was just temporary but in the days that followed he was removed from the work group chat. The Worker stated that he went to the leisure centre on 17 January 2025 to ask his manager why he was removed from the group chat and why he was not rostered to work. The manager was not there so he asked a staff member to ask the manager to ring him. The manager never contacted him. While at the leisure centre he noted that there was a new employee working. He was never formally told in writing that he was dismissed and in advance of that he was never told that there was an issue with how he was performing his duties.

  The Employer submitted that the Worker was let go during his probationary period. There were issues with the Worker’s performance, and his line manager had chats with him about the issues. He accepted that this was never formalised and that no record was taken of the conversations. The Employer also confirmed that the Worker was not written to and told his employment was terminated and the reason for same. He confirmed that he was familiar with the requirements of the Code of Practise S.I. No. 146/2000. He accepted they had not followed the procedure set out in same or any procedure at all. The Employer stated that they accepted that there were procedural errors in how they had handled the matter.

The Court having considered the submissions of the parties both written and oral recommends that the Employer pay the Worker compensation of €2,000.

The Court so Recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Louise O'Donnell
FC	______________________
01 December 2025	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be in writing and addressed to Ms Fiona Corcoran, Court Secretary.