Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Bus Driver

A Charitable Service

Representatives

In person

Stephen O’Sullivan B.L. instructed by TP Robinson Solicitors

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Dispute seeking adjudication under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00003369

01/11/2024

The worker was employed as a bus driver from 11th March 2024 until his dismissal during an extended probationary period on 12th October 2024. The worker claims that he was unfairly dismissed and is seeking compensation.

The worker represented himself at adjudication. The worker’s position is that he was unfairly dismissed. The worker sated that he always did his best at work but that others were making complaints about him that were not true and that management was not listening to him. The worker stated that he had been advised that he was entitled to have legal representation but that this was denied.

In respect of the incidents leading to the extension of his probation, he accepted that he had entered a roundabout on the wrong side of the road but had done this as he was more familiar with driving on the right had side of the road. The worker stated that once he realised his error he left the roundabout to correct his positioning on the road. In respect of the reversing incident, the worker stated that he barely touched the kerb and the cyclist that was approaching had stopped to allow him to finish his manoeuvre. The worker also stated that changing activities was not an issue as the service users seemed happy with the changes he made and in respect of using humour and jokes, the worker felt that this was well received by the service users. The worker also outlined the positive feedback he received for preventing a passenger on the bus form falling and when he avoided an accident on the road due to his quick reactions.

The worker feels that the dismissal is unfair as the employer did not listen to his explanations of the alleged performance issues and he was not permitted to have legal representation during the probationary and disciplinary meetings, which he believes he is entitled to.

The worker confirmed that he was unemployed from 12th October 2024 until 4th December 2024 and is seeking compensation in the amount of €11,165.00 in relation to his complaint.

The employer stated that it treated the worker fairly throughout his employment. The employer said it had safety concerns regarding the worker’s driving as he had driven on the wrong side of the road and had mounted a kerb while reversing. The employer also had concerns in respect of the workers interactions with service users regarding their safety while disembarking the bus and in relation to using humour when communicating. The employer also outlined that the worker had changed his bus route without permission which had caused concerns to the family members of service users when they were late returning home. The employer also stated that the worker had changed activities without notice or permission which had also caused some difficulties for the service users as it disrupted their routine etc.

As a result of these issues, the employer extended the worker’s probationary period for one month to assess if the worker was suitable for permanent employment. The employer’s position was that ultimately the worker was not, and he was dismissed for unsuccessfully completing the probationary period. The employer stated that the worker was offered the opportunity to appeal his dismissal but despite initiating an appeal, it was not pursed.

In conducting my investigation, I have considered all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties. The employer addressed a number of issues with the worker during the probationary period and the probationary period was extended.

Apart from not accepting the issues raised by the employer, the worker was dissatisfied with how the employer manged the probationary period and the disciplinary process on the basis that he was not permitted to have legal representation. While the worker was of the view that legal representation was mandatory, the employer had always facilitated representation in line with its procedures.

Having considered the matter, I find that the employer acted in line with its procedures in respect of the workers employment and acted fairly towards him in relation to extending his probation to establish if he was suitable for permanent employment. The employer stated that, having assessed the worker’s performance throughout the probationary period, it was ultimately decided that he was not a good fit for the organisation.

In assessing a dispute under the Industrial Relations Act, the role of an adjudication officer is to establish if the worker was treated fairly by the employer and if the employer acted reasonably in relation to the worker’s continued employment and I am satisfied that the employer behaved appropriately in respect of its management of the probationary period and the workers dismissal from his employment.

On that basis, I find that the worker was not unfairly dismissed.

Having considered the submissions of both parties, and for the reasons stated above, I do not recommend in favour of the worker.

Dismissal during the probationary period.