Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

An Employee

An Employer

Representatives

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00069186-001

10/02/2025

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

CA-00069186-002

10/02/2025

The Complainant alleges he was dismissed without any fair procedures. The Respondent states that he was dismissed for poor performance during his probationary period.

The Complainant started working with company E… Limited. They were UK based but he worked here in the Republic of Ireland. They left the market in 2024 and the Respondent took over the contract following a competition. There was no transfer of undertakings.  He got his contract in July 2024 with a start date of 4th August 2024. There was a six month probationary period in his contract. His role was to work for a County Council who had a contract with the Respondent. He had been doing this work under a man called  Mr. MN before the Respondent took over. He, MN also got a job with the Respondent. The Complainant didn’t have many dealings with Mr MN because he just issue the work schedules and the Complainant went off and did what needed to be done. The odd time they worked together.

In August 2024 he was given a vehicle and all the tools he needed to do the job. There was no issue up to 5th December. On that date the Complainant went into the office to collect fittings. Another colleague, Mr. A asked for the keys of the vehicle as he needed it for the following day. The following day was a Saturday. The Complainant asked if he was working too and he was told that he wasn’t. He called Mr MN, and asked if he was working and if not, why not? He said, “you are going to the party tonight so I didn’t think that you would want to work tomorrow”.  The Complainant said that he hadn’t planned on drinking alcohol if he was working on Saturday. Several employees were asked to work and some of them hadn’t  even been working on the project at all. Mr MN said “ you are not working and that’s the end of it”. The Complainant got annoyed and called him unprofessional and said it felt personal. He showed favouritism toward four other employees to his detriment. There are only five on the team, but he rang all four and left him out. He felt he was discriminated against. Then they got into a discussion about the role and Mr MN said  “well I make all the decisions not you “. He told the Complainant to give the keys to CS. CS was serving a driving ban and it wasn’t due to expire July 2025.

On the 20th January at his probationary review, he was told that his employment was being terminated. He asked PY why, and he was told Mr. MN was not satisfied with his performance. On the 3rd and 4th December 2024 he was sent out to a site on Swords Main Street. There was an issue with the Christmas tree timer clock. This timer would have been set previously. This one wasn’t working. He had to try and resolve it, but it wasn’t working correctly.  He hadn’t received any training in this area. They couldn’t get it to work correctly. There was the same issue with the tree in Blanchardstown. He was told to just take away the clock and leave it on 24/7. On the 20th January he was told he was incompetent because of the Christmas tree lights issue in December. Nobody had spoken to him about the lights until the 20th January.  

After he was dismissed, he filed his complaint. It was then that he was told that Mr. MN felt intimidated by him. After he was dismissed on the 20th January, he went in to confront Mr MN. Up to that there was no issue between them, and they worked side by side on several projects and there was no issue at all. When he saw him, he called him a “coward” and a “disgrace” because he made this decision without having the balls to come and talk to him.   He appealed that decision but about ten days later he was told it was not successful. There was no hearing, and he was not asked for any statement.

He got a new job towards the end of February. He went to a dark place and found it all very difficult. He did email Mr. MN asking for the job back. He apologised for how he spoke to him on the 20th January and for their conversation on the 5th December and he said he would work and he would hear a peep out of him.  He feels he is entitled compensation for how he was treated.

PY:

PY has been the Operations Manager for 20 years with the Respondent.

Prior to the employees starting the role with the Respondent, there was a meeting with all of the new staff and they were told what was expected of them and what the terms and conditions of the job would be. They were all on a six month probationary period. The probation review period expired in February 2025. On 20th January 2025 the probationary period reviews were begin carried out. He independently gathered all of the information about the employees who were under a probationary period.  In or around beginning of January he started gathering information about all of the employees on probation. He asked Mr. MN about the Complainant and was told that he wasn’t suitable for the role going forward. He asked him why he hadn’t addressed it with him before now and he said he couldn’t because there was nobody else to do that role, so he just had to get on with it. He asked what the issue was and was told that the Complainant couldn’t control the situation in relation to the timers on the Christmas trees in December which was a basic issue and a County Council engineer had to come out and fix the issue. At the review he told the Complainant that his employment was being terminated. He asked him to just leave and to not go in a speak to Mr MN. However, he ignored that and went in and interrupted a teams meeting with the County Council and spoke to him when everyone on line could hear. He then left and hopped into a vehicle he wasn’t insured to drive, he threw an expensive table out the window and drove off.  His departure from the company wasn’t personal. He simply wasn’t fit to carry out the role.

CA 69186 – 001

The Complainant commenced his employment with the Respondent on 06/08/2024 and his employment was terminated on the 20/01/2025. The Complainant does not have twelve months service.

The section of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 (as amended) that sets out the 12-month service requirement to bring a claim to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) is Section 2(1)(a). It states:

“This Act shall not apply in relation to an employee who has not been in the continuous service of the employer for at least 12 months ending with the date of the termination of his employment.”

On that basis I do not have jurisdiction to hear or determine that complaint.

CA 69186 –002 

The Complainant gave evidence that his departure from the Company due to the fact that Mr. MN didn’t like him and that it had nothing to do with his capabilities. The Respondent states that his employment was terminated during his probationary period because his performance was not up to the standard they required.

The important facts in this matter are that the Complainant was termination during his probationary period and for poor performance reasons only.

The Irish High Court decision Anna Buttimer v Oak Fuel Supermarket Limited (Costcutter Rathcormac) [2023] IEHC 126, which confirms that dismissal during probation on grounds of misconduct requires the employer to provide fair procedures, even if the contract excludes disciplinary procedures during probation.

By contrast, the more widely discussed High Court decision in O'Donovan v Over C Technology Limited & Anor [2020] IEHC 291, the Court of Appeal held that in cases of performance based dismissal during probation—where the contract expressly allows termination without cause—no implied right to fair procedures applies, whereas if the dismissal is for misconduct, natural justice must be observed.

There was no evidence in relation to any misconduct. The only evidence in relation to the termination was due to poor performance. On that basis the law clearly sets out that the Respondent was entitled to dismiss the Complainant in the absence of procedures fair or otherwise.

In those circumstances I am not making any recommendations.

CA 69186 – 001 The complaint fails.

CA 69186 – 002 The complaint fails.