Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Supply Chain Co-ordinator

A Retailer

Representatives

N/A 

The HR Suite

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969

ADJ-00054581

08/10/2024

The Worker was employed as a Supply Chain Coordinator from 13 November 2023 until 28 June 2024. She stated that she was treated unfairly by the Employer during the course of her employment and that her dismissal was unfair.

The Worker stated that her role was undefined from the outset leaving her unsure about her job responsibilities. She also said that the duties she was required to fulfil were at odds with the initial job description and what had been discussed with her at the interview stage.

She stated that she was treated unfairly throughout her employment such as being constantly blamed for issues in the allocations process even though the errors stemmed from mistakes made by others. She also stated that her colleagues lied when they gave her positive feedback even though they made negative reports about her to management.

She also alleged that she was asked to give an explanation when she asked for leave from work, unlike other colleagues.

She also alleged that the Employer penalised her because of her introverted personality and stated that management categorised this as a performance issue, even forcing her to engage in conversations with colleagues as part of her PIP.

She stated that her dismissal caused her huge financial hardship and distress but that the Employer did not offer her any real support even though she made them aware of her difficulties.

 On 27 February 2024, the Worker attended a three-month probation review meeting with her manager, where initial performance concerns were discussed.

On 29 April 2024, the Worker attended a five-month probation review Meeting, during which ongoing performance issues were discussed. As a result of the concerns regarding the Worker’s performance, a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) was implemented to support the Worker’s development. The Worker was provided with weekly review meetings under the Performance Improvement Plan, receiving feedback and guidance on her performance on the following dates:

 • 3 May, 10 May, 17 May, 24 May, and 31 May 2024.

The Worker was provided with documented feedback after each weekly review of her Performance Improvement Plan (PIP). Throughout this process, the Worker was made fully aware of the performance expectations and the potential consequences of failing to meet the required standards. It was clearly communicated to her that failure to achieve the outlined objectives could result in her failing her probation and the possibility of the termination of her employment.

On 7 June 2024, a meeting was held where it was outlined that the Worker was not meeting the key performance indicators (KPIs) set out in the Performance Improvement Pan. Consequently, her probationary period was extended to allow additional time for improvement.

On 11 June 2024, a follow-up meeting was held to review the Worker’s progress. Due to continued performance issues, the Performance Improvement Plan was extended by a further two weeks.

On 27 June 2024, the Worker was issued with an invitation to attend a final probation review Meeting, with twenty-four hours’ notice provided.

On 28 June 2024, the final probation review meeting took place. It was outlined that, despite the supports provided, the Worker had not met the required performance standards. As a result, her probation was deemed unsuccessful, and her employment was terminated. The Worker was given two weeks’ notice, her annual leave allocation, and an additional paid week as a goodwill gesture.

The Worker also retained access to the Employee Assistance Programme (EAP) post-employment, further demonstrating the Respondent’s commitment to supporting the Worker beyond the termination of her contract.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

I noted in the first instance the incredible detail outlined in the performance improvement plan which clearly identified the Worker’s shortcomings as well as all the extraordinary levels of supports provided to her over the duration of this plan to meet the standards required. I further noted that the Employer extended the timeframe of the PIP in a final attempt to afford her the opportunity to meet the required standards prior to deciding to terminate her employment. I also noted that the Employer gave her an additional one week’s pay as a goodwill gesture when she left their employment.

Considering all of the foregoing, I find that the way in which the Employer managed the Worker’s performance was a textbook example of how any employer should deal with an underperforming employee and is a tribute to what is clearly an excellent Human resources function in the organisation. Accordingly, I cannot recommend concession of the complaint.