Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

An Accommodation Supervisor

A Hotel Operator

Representatives

Self-represented

Duncan Inverarity SC, A&L Goodbody LLP

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00066505-001

07/10/2024

On 7th of October 2024 , the Worker referred the within dispute of Unfair Dismissal under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act  to the Commission alleging that she was unfairly dismissed by the employer on 2nd of October 2024.

The Employer states that she was dismissed due to performance issues during her probationary period.

The worker submits that he was employed by the named employer as an Accommodation Supervisor from 8th of April 2024.

She  further submits that  the named employer advised her at a meeting on

This was confirmed by letter dated on 2nd of October 2024 which stated that her contract was terminated due to performance issues. 

The  employer  submits that the workers employment was terminated during her probationary 6 months for performance reasons.

 The employer further submits that these matters were raised with the worker in meetings with her supervisors and manager and were documented in review meetings held in June and July 2024.

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

The worker submits that he was employed by the named employer a an Accommodation Supervisor from 8th of April 2024.

She  further submits that  the named employer advised her on 2nd of October 2024 that her employment  was being terminated due to performance issues. 

The named employer  submits that the workers employment was terminated during her probationary 6 months for performance reasons.  The employer submits that these matters were raised with the worker in meetings with her supervisors and manager in June and July 2024 and were documented in a formal review meeting held in June 2024

The Worker gave evidence that she had raised many issues during her employment with the employer and sought to asset that these amounted to protected disclosures.

The employer at the hearing stated that the worker had never made any protected disclosures and had also not lodged the within complaint under the Protected Disclosures act but instead lodged  a claim for Unfair dismissal.

I note that he within claim is a claim of Unfair dismissal  lodged under the Industrial Relations Act.

The worker at the hearing sought to assert that following her dismissal she believes the employer gave her a bad reference as she was unsuccessful in a number of job applications until she removed the employer form her CV after which she succeeded in securing employment.

The employer advised the hearing that it had received no calls or queries from any prospective employer in respect of the worker and also that it had provided  a statement of employment when requested. The worker at the hearing expressed dissatisfaction with the statement of employment.  The employer advised the hearing that it is common practice n=in the industry to issue a statement of employment rather than a personal reference .

The worker asserts that she was dismissed following her making complaints about various issues such as the behaviour of colleagues as well as raising issues about hygiene standards such as cross contamination of laundry and dirty glasses in rooms as well as the way in which crib bedding was being stored.

The worker in her submissions provided numerous emails which she had sent to management raising these issues and concerns during the 6 months of her employment

 The Employer agreed that the worker had made a number of issues and concerns about her colleagues and about how cleaning was being carried out which was done by an external company as well as disagreeing with how certain things were carried out.

The employer stated that the workers  employment was terminated during her probationary period due to performance issues which had been raised with the complainant in both formal and informal  review meetings in June and July 2024.

The employer in support of this assertion stated that the worker had scored very low in some categories in this review and that she was advised that improvement was needed in certain areas.

The worker advised the hearing that the manager had told her that she needed to learn to calm down if she wanted to become her assistant manager.  The employer produced a record of a verbal discussion between the worker and her manager where this was discussed.

The employer also provided a copy of the formal review meeting where the worker had  received low scores or red ratings in some categories.

The employer went on to state that A ‘red’ rating on the Employer rating scale translates to ‘It can’t go on like this. Lead co-ordinates measures with HR. Followup after 8-10 weeks. The Worker’s ‘red’ rated categories where she scored low  included the following competencies: · ‘Is well integrated in the team and shows a collegial and loyal behaviour towards colleagues and superiors’ · ‘Has good feeling for guests, customers and colleagues and approaches them appropriately and actively’. · ‘Convinces with an independent way of working and problem solving. Needs little or no guidance. Searches independently for sensible solutions.

The Worker also received a ‘red’ rating in respect of the Employer’s corporate values of ‘Community’ and ‘Courage’. The Employer expects each of its employees to act in accordance with each of its corporate values.     It was noted on the performance evaluation form that the Worker “has been slow to accept an external cleaning company and has not been supportive in this area. Further, (the worker) has had several negative interactions with other colleagues making it at times a difficult environment to work in…”.

The employer stated that the worker had difficulties with colleagues and was not a team player the employer also advised the hearing that the worker made complaints about the work of an external company which it employed to carry out the cleaning of the rooms.

The worker herself advised the hearing that she had raised issues in respect of the storage of bedding for cots and in respect of the way I which certain items were a laundered together as she considered this to lead to cross contamination in the laundry.  The same washing machine continued to be used to wash, crib items, and soiled duvets, mattress/pillow protectors raising hygiene concerns.

I am satisfied form the evidence adduced that ethe worker was dismissed during her probationary period for performance reasons.

In considering this matter I note that The question of the Dismissal of an employee with less than 12 months service has been considered at length by Ms Justice Costello in the Court of Appeal [2021] IECA 37 – O’Donovan v Over-C Technology Limited.

It was accepted that dismissal during Probation was legally possible where it was clearly an issue of Performance without any suggestions of wilful wrongdoing on the part of the Worker. Any suggestions of this latter situation would require a complete and proper investigation/full procedure etc.

On that basis the law clearly sets out that the Employer was entitled to dismiss the Worker during the probationary period.

In those circumstances I do not recommend in favour of the worker.

I do not recommend in favour of the worker.