ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference:
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Recruitment Co-ordinator | Care Provider |
Representatives | David O’Reilly | David Browne Solicitor |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
CA-00027599-001 | ||
CA-00027599-002 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing:
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 andSection 13 of the IndustrialRelations Act 1969following 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.
Background:
The Complainant contends that she was unfairly dismissed before her six month probation period was completed. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant worked as a Recruitment Co-ordinator. She was employed from 28th October 2018 and was summarily dismissed on 29th March 2019. It is submitted that the Respondent did not follow their own stated procedures in the dismissal and fair procedures were not afforded her. Her written contract of employment stated that she was employed as a permanent full time employee, initially on a probation period of six months. The contract also provided that she would be reviewed during the period. It is submitted that no review was held until 6th March 2019 when the Respondent’s General Manager conducted a performance appraisal meeting with her and advised her that he was unhappy with certain aspects of her work and attitude. On 21st March 2019 she was handed a letter which purported to confirm the items in the 6th March meeting, which the complainant denies were discussed. On 22nd March 2019 the General Manager again summoned the Complainant to a meeting and he questioned why she would want to bring a colleague with her. Although they were to meet again on 2nd April 2019 to discuss the issues, the General Manager called her in to his office on 29th March 2019 and stated “this is not working out”. He advised her that she would receive three weeks wages and he effectively escorted her to the door. It is argued that the Complainant was summarily dismissed by the Respondent without giving the Complainant any fair procedures or natural justice. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent terminated the Complainant’s employment as unfortunately the employment did not work out. It is argued that the Respondent dealt humanely with the Complainant and voluntarily gave her three weeks pay. The Respondent submits that there is no “trade dispute” in this matter and that the claim is vexatious. |
Recommendation:
CA-00027599-001
The Complainant was employed with the Respondent for a period of five months. I note the Respondent’s handbook states that the full rigours of the disciplinary process may not apply during the probationary period. However, basic fair procedures were not followed in this case. The Labour Court has found that even during the probationary period, an employee must be afforded fair procedures. S.I. 146 of 2000 lays down the basic rights of employees to a fair hearing, the right of representation of their choice and the right of appeal. In this instant case, the Respondent fell short of what a reasonable employer would do in the circumstances. I find that the Complainant was therefore unfairly dismissed and I recommend a compensatory sum of €2,000 be paid to her by the Respondent.
CA-00027599-002
The Complainant stated that she was the subject of bullying and harassment by the General Manager and that she had nowhere to go with her grievance as she was expressly forbidden by the General Manager to contact the owner of the business. I note that no complaint was made by her and while she may have been discouraged from contacting the owner of the business, there is no evidence to demonstrate that she considered doing so. I cannot find in her favour in this element of her complaints.
Dated: 6th August 2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: