LCR23193

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: Section 20(1) Industrial Relations Act 1969 (Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969)

BACKGROUND:

The Worker referred this case to the Labour Court on 18th March 2025 in accordance with Section 20 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, and agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.

A Labour Court hearing took place on 5th November 2025.

RECOMMENDATION:

The Worker commenced employment as a Customer Service Agent on 19 August 2024. Her employment was terminated without any advance warning on 24 October 2024.  She was employed under a permanent contract subject to a six-month probationary period. The Worker had some lates due to Public Transport issues and was only spoken to about a customer interaction issue. On 24 October 2024 she was required to sign a document in respect of the two lates and on 26 October 2024 a document in respect of the customer interaction issue. She was absent from work from 27 to 29 October 2024 as she was assaulted in the city centre, and her phone was stolen. She had to attend the hospital and contacted a fellow employee to tell them what had happened and asked that person to contact her supervisor and let them know.

When she returned to work, she was called to a meeting and informed that she was being dismissed. She was not told in advance the purpose of the meeting and when she tried to explain what had happened to her, she was told the decision had already been made to dismiss her. It was her submission that the dismissal was unfair, and she was seeking compensation.

The Employer submitted that during the short period that she was employed the Worker was issued with four warnings. Between the period 19 to 28 August, she received three warnings for arriving late. On 1 October 2024 she was issued with a further warning, a final written warning, for arriving late, poor attitude on calls and call manipulation.

On the 21 October the Worker was absent form work without explanation. The Employer rang her and received no response. The following day the Worker’s colleague sent a WhatsApp message to the Worker’s supervisor stating that the Worker’s phone had been robbed and that she would have a doctor’s note to cover 21 and 22 October. The message stated that the Worker would be back in work on Wednesday 23 October 2024.

 She did not attend work on the 23 October, and no contact was made with the respondent. The worker attended work on 24 October 2024. On her return to work she was called to a meeting and advised that following her recent absence her employment was being terminated. On 25 October 2024 the Employer issued a letter to the Worker confirming her termination and that she would be paid two weeks’ pay in lieu of notice.

In response to queries from the court the Employer confirmed that they were aware of S.I. No. 146 of 2000 Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures and that they had not followed the procedures set out in same or any procedures at all. The Worker was not told in advance the purpose of the meting nor was she advised of her right to representation. It was confirmed to the Court that the decision to dismiss had been made the day before the meeting with the Worker, and that anything the Worker raised at the meeting would not change that decision.  Based on these facts it is clear to the Court that the Employer did not comply with the minimum requirements of the Code of practice.

The Court having considered the submissions of the parties both oral and written determines that the Worker was not given an opportunity to explain her absence in advance of the decision to dismiss and therefore that decision is unfair the Court recommends that the Employer pay the Worker compensation equivalent to one month’s salary.

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Louise O'Donnell
JNF	______________________
26 November 2025	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this this Recommendation should be in writing and addressed to Julie Nicholl-Flood, Court Secretary..