ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969

Investigation Recommendation Reference:  IR-SC-00003553 & IR-SC-00003562

Parties:

Disputes:

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Gaye Cunningham

Date of Hearing:             25/06/2025

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended) following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any information relevant to the dispute.

Background:

The Worker submitted two disputes centred around the same issue.  She contends she was unfairly dismissed after some 6 weeks employment with the Employer.

Summary of Workers Case:

The Worker was employed from 29/10/2024 to 12/12/2024.  She did not have any problem until the day of her review.  She was called her in on 12/12/2024 for a review.  She was asked what were her strengths and weaknesses.  She was told Management would be consulted and she would receive another review some weeks later.  Then she was called in on the afternoon of 12/12/2024  and they said it was not working out, and that she was being let go for tardiness.  Nothing had been said about timekeeping at the earlier meeting.  At that point a new employee was on the premises and was there to replace the Worker.  She was dismissed in the afternoon with no warning and escorted out of the building as if she was a criminal. She felt she was thrown out of her job and was extremely disappointed at the treatment she received. 

The Worker provided submissions following the hearing, taking issue with the Employer’s submission.

Summary of Employer’s Case:

The Employer confirmed that during the first two weeks of the Worker’s employment, she received structured training in her role and in the use of internal systems. A significant amount of on the job training also took place over this initial nine-day period. This focused not only on familiarising her with internal policies and procedures but also on introducing her to the residents and the layout of the building. Several training certificates were submitted to demonstrate training which occurred and structured training on commencement followed this formal based training. The Employer emphasised that it was identified early on that the Worker would require more in depth training for certain specific aspects of the role. Some matters for example in relation to protection of documents containing information were brought to the Worker’s attention.  The Worker also had two periods of sick leave during the 6 weeks of her employment and she was in attendance for some 3 weeks out of the 6 weeks.  Arrangements were made for the previous post holder, Ms W to return to site to provide targeted support. Although Ms W was scheduled to deliver this training, her attendance was initially delayed due to the Worker’s sick leave. When Ms W did attend, she was placed on payroll, in line with standard practice for any individual working onsite who is not engaged as a contractor. The Employer submitted supporting documentation:

• An exchange of messages between the PIC and Ms W outlining the arrangement for a two-week engagement.
• Calendar entries confirming that Ms W’s return was limited to those two weeks.
• Evidence showing that Ms W’s employment ceased at the conclusion of that period and that she did not return to site until after the Worker’s employment had ended. The Employer confirms that the Worker was not thrown out, her employment was terminated in following an internal process. Ms G did not follow the Worker to reception, she was upset, and Ms G asked her to reconsider driving or to give it a little time, or if they could ask someone else to get her home. The Worker declined, shook Ms G’s hand, and handed Ms G her access fob and key. She was not thrown out. There is CCTV in the reception area of the home, and the function of this is not to resolve disputes such as these allegations. However, the Employer is more than satisfied the events are as it has explained them and that this would be reflected if it were reviewed.

Conclusions:

The Worker in this case was employed for just over 6 weeks when she was dismissed following a review.  I note the review took place in the morning and the dismissal in the afternoon, with no warning or notice.  I note the Employer’s contention that there were issues regarding attendance and performance.  However, no warning or formal advice was issued to the Worker on foot of this. I find that especially in circumstances where there are performance issues, a reasonable Employer would give an employee the opportunity to improve, and this was not done in this case. I recommend that the Employer offer the Worker the sum of €500 as a full and final compensation settlement to close this dispute.

Recommendation:

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.

I recommend that the Employer offer the Worker the sum of €500 as a full and final compensation settlement to close this dispute.

Dated:   08th of August 2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Gaye Cunningham

Key Words: