Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A restaurant server

A restaurant

Representatives

Act

Date of Receipt

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

10/02/2025. 

The Worker referred one dispute to the WRC for investigation, namely that she was unfairly dismissed and that she had been bullied by several other workers.

The Worker submits that she commenced employment in mid-September 2024.

The Worker submitted that during her time working with the respondent she experienced constant challenges that affected her well-being, both mentally and physically.  From the outset she encountered difficulties with the head manager Ms X. She submits that Ms X’s communication style was harsh and she displayed aggressive behaviour towards the Worker. The Worker submits that if she made errors entering orders into the system management deducted the cost of the errors from the staffs’ tips.  Other members of the management team expressed dissatisfaction with the Worker’s performance even though they did not provide guidance to the Worker on how to carry out certain tasks. The Worker’s supervisor, Ms Y, frequently shouted at the Worker which led her, the Worker, to initiating a formal complaint.

The Worker submits that she experienced bullying behaviour from a colleague, Mr Z, which further exacerbated her distress. He frequently targeted her and making her work unbearable. On 4th December 2024, despite having been advised by her GP to rest, the Worker went to work. While there she was asked to attend a meeting with Ms X and a Mr A from Human Resources.  At this meeting the Worker was told that she was being dismissed because of alleged conflicts with colleagues.

At the hearing the Worker stated that she was never properly been trained on how to work the cash machine and when she made errors, she was harshly dealt with by her supervisor. On one occasion the Worker was asked to turn a blind eye to cover another employee’s wrongdoing, which she refused to do. The Worker stated that her supervisor often got angry and shouted at her.   She reported her supervisor to management, but nothing was done about her complaints.

She stated when she came to work on 4th December 2024, she had a meeting with Ms X and Mr A which only lasted 10 minutes.  She was asked about an incident with customers which had taken place the night before. She was told she was being dismissed because, she was told by Mr A, that she was not working well yet it was she who had complained about her colleagues.

The Worker stated that following her dismissal, she wrote to the Employer and was written to in response.  In the response Mr A told the Worker that she did not pass her probation. 

The Worker submits that in her opinion the reason she was dismissed was because she had made complaints about her mistreatment at work.

The Employer submitted that the Worker’s employment was terminated due to her failure to pass probation. Her contract of employment was subject to a six-month probationary period.

The Employer stated that the Worker made a much larger number of errors than would be usual.  Concerns relating to her performance were raised with her informally.  Additional training was provided but the errors continued, and her performance was not up to the standard required. On foot of this a decision was made that the Worker would not pass probation and that she be dismissed as per her contract of employment.  This decision was communicated to the Worker in person on 4 December 2024.

Regarding complaints made by the Worker relating to another employee, the Employer submits that this complaint was addressed through informal mediation.

The Employer submits that as the Worker had failed her probation, she was dismissed with immediate effect. The Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973 did not apply to this Worker as she had not worked the minimum number of weeks to be paid notice.

At the hearing the Employer stated that the Worker’s performance at work was poor.  He accepted that while the role required a time to learn, this Worker’s error count was higher than that of her peers and did not improve sufficiently despite additional training being given to her.  The Worker was spoken to in November when concerns about her performance were outlined to her; there was no improvement.

Regarding the other issues raised by the Worker with HR; these were addressed, but there were more incidents.  The Employer stressed that although there may have been issues between the Worker and her colleagues the reason she was dismissed was solely due to her poor performance.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant oral and written submissions presented to me by the parties.

 My investigative function in respect of this trade dispute referral is subject to the provisions of section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969, as amended, (the “1969 Act”). 

 Section 13(2) of the 1969 Act excludes from referral scope disputes connected with rates of pay of, hours or times of work of, or annual holidays of, a body of workers.

I am satisfied that the Worker is a worker and relevant party for the purposes of a dispute referral under the 1969 Act. 

It seems to me that there were difficulties between the Worker and her colleagues as well as performance issues. I accept the Worker’s assertion that she was poorly treated by some of the management team.  I also accept the Employer’s assertion that the Worker employment was terminated due to performance issues, as they are so entitled to do.

I find the Worker was negatively impacted upon by her difficulties at work which were not resolved properly, making it more difficult for her to find work than should be the case ordinarily.

I note the Worker had almost reached the 13-week threshold to be entitled to a week’s notice payment. In the circumstances I recommend, that as a gesture of goodwill, the Employer pay the Worker one week’s pay.

Probation, performance