Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Client Services Coordinator

A Recruitment Agency

Representatives

Self-represented 

Mark Comerford, IBEC

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

IR - SC – 00003501

03/12/2024

This is a dispute about the fact that the worker was dismissed during her probation.  The employer is a recruitment company and the worker commenced working with them on September 2nd 2024 as a client services coordinator on an annual salary of €26,000.  On November 7th, she was informed that she didn’t pass her probation and she was dismissed.  She was paid one week’s pay in lieu of notice. 

At the hearing, the worker said that, in the course of the nine weeks that she was employed, she met her line manager in person just once.  Her line manager was based in Galway, and she worked in Dublin and they met when the line manager came to Dublin for training.

In the course of her induction training, the worker said that the person who was supporting her worked remotely, but then she had an injury and was out of work altogether.  She was trained on the booking system for temporary staff by another colleague.  She said that she informed her line manager that the person who was training her was out sick.  She said that this resulted in her not being completely clued in.

When this person returned to work, the worker said that she asked her for extra training.  She said that she wasn’t told that there was a problem with her performance or that she was doing anything wrong.

Although she was informed that clients were complaining that she didn’t reply to emails, the worker said that she also got emails from clients who complained that her colleagues weren’t replying to emails.  She said that she told her manager that more staff were needed, but the response she got was that they couldn’t afford more employees.

On November 7th 2024, the complainant said that her access to the company’s systems were withdrawn and she was paid for one week.   She feels that if she had been told what the issues were with her performance, she could have tried to improve.

The worker said that around four weeks after she was dismissed, she got a new job which is working out well.

For the employer, Mr Comerford said that the complainant’s manager had regular one to one meetings with her, although the meetings were conducted online.  A colleague of the worker raised concerns about how she was managing her caseload and temporary clients were complaining that she couldn’t be reached so that they could communicate with her about their shifts.

Mr Comerford said that, due to concerns about the worker’s performance, an additional day’s training was arranged, but, ultimately, a conclusion was reached that she wasn’t the right person for the role.  Mr Comerford accepted that the worker was assigned to a job in a very busy environment.  At the end of her two-month probation review, a decision was made that she needed too much support and she was informed that she didn’t pass her probation.

Concluding his submission for the employer, Mr Comerford pointed out that the employer had a contractual entitlement to terminate the worker’s employment during the probation period.  This decision was made due to concerns about her performance which were highlighted to her during one-to-one meetings with her manager.  Mr Comerford said that the worker’s training went beyond the standard induction for the role and her performance was measured against her predecessors and new staff appointed to the same job.

From the information provided to me by both sides at the hearing of this dispute, there is no conflict between the parties that the worker was struggling in her role, although each side attributed a different cause to her difficulties.  The worker said that she didn’t get enough training and support and the employer asserted that she wasn’t suitable for the job.

The employer’s position is that the worker was supported to overcome the challenges associated with what was a busy and demanding role.  I have some appreciation also for the difficulties the worker experienced in a new job where there were demands from two separate sets of clients, the prospective employers and the employees seeking assignments.

As Mr Comerford pointed out at the hearing, there is no legal impediment to the termination of the employment of a worker during probation.

In general, a complaint being considered under the Industrial Relations Act is a less formal matter than a hearing under the Unfair Dismissals Act; however, I am guided by the decision of the Labour Court in the case of Beechside Company Limited, trading as the Park Hotel Kenmare and A Worker[1].  It is clear from this decision that the requirement for fair procedures is not confined to employees who have adequate service to benefit from the protection of the Unfair Dismissals Act, and the Labour Court has consistently determined that employees with short service come within the protection of the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures.

Before she was dismissed, the worker should have been informed about the problems that were leading her managers to conclude that she was unsuitable for the job.  She should have been given an opportunity to address the issues that were causing concern.  If the employer had explained to her what was required to ensure that she remained in the job in the longer term, she may have adapted and reached the standard of performance that was required to make her a better fit for the job, or she may have resigned of her own accord, and been saved the humiliation of dismissal.

In settlement of this dispute, I recommend that the employer pay the worker compensation of €2,000, equivalent to approximately four weeks’ pay.

Dismissal during probation