Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Deli Assistant

A Petrol Station

Representatives

  Self-Represented

 The HR Suite

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

IR - SC - 00003504

03/12/2024

The Employee filed a dispute on 3 December 2024 for dismissal under the Industrial Relations Act 1969. As the Employee did not have the requisite one year’s service to bring a complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977, the referral is made under the provisions of section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

A Director of the Employer Company. Submissions were received in advance of hearing.

The name of the Employer was amended on consent at the outset of the hearing.

The Employee outlined her dispute as an instance of unfair dismissal. She stated that she was called into the office by the Director and the Deli Manager on 28 November 2024. At that meeting, she was informed that her employment was being terminated.

According to the Employee, she had to ask for clarification during the conversation, as it was unclear what the Director was referring to. She left her employment on that date and subsequently emailed the employer requesting an explanation as to why her position had been terminated. A response was not received until 3 December 2024, which she felt did not provide any further clarity on the reason for her dismissal.

The Employee further submitted that she had not received any negative or constructive feedback regarding her performance from the Deli Manager; rather, she had only received positive feedback. As evidence, she noted that she had signed her contract of employment on the Monday prior to being dismissed on the following Thursday.

The Employee denied that any issues or corrections had ever been raised in relation to her customer service.

She concluded by stating that she had since secured alternative employment, which she commenced on 9 December 2024, and that she was earning more in her new role.

The Employer's Director outlined that the Employee had been given regular on the job feedback but accepted that there were no formal probationary reviews conducted. Concerns had been raised with the Employee regarding her customer service.

The Director accepted that the Employee did seek clarification during the termination meeting and further acknowledged that the Employee appeared surprised when she was informed that the company would no longer be proceeding with her employment.

The Employer relied on the probation clause in the Employee's contract of employment. It was further stated that it would not be in the Employer’s interest given the time and cost associated with recruiting and training employees to terminate an Employee’s employment without good reason.

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

The Employer submitted that the Employee was dismissed due to performance issues during her probationary period. This is disputed by the Employee.

The Employee was never advised of the reason for her dismissal, either at the meeting in November 2024 or in the email dated 3 December 2024 from her former Employer. It was evident that she did not understand the purpose or content of the meeting on 28 November 2024, during which it was accepted by the Employer that she was surprised and sought clarification regarding the meeting's intent. No meeting notes or invitation letters were referenced.

In the interest of fairness, the purpose of the meeting and the reason for her termination should have been communicated to the Employee at that time, rather than leaving her to learn of it for the first time during a hearing before the Workplace Relations Commission. It appears that the Employee was not provided with an opportunity to challenge the summary dismissal of her employment.

While it is considered good practice to engage in formal probationary reviews, it is equally understandable that many roles involve on the job training and guidance. However, if the Employer had clear concerns regarding the Employee’s customer service, it would have been appropriate to formally communicate these issues and provide the Employee with an opportunity to address and improve upon them.

The findings of the Labour Court in Recommendation LCR22710 is noted:-

“It is the view of the Court that whenever a worker, including a worker who is on probation, is at risk of the loss of his or her job, it is incumbent on the employer to make the worker aware of the situation and of the reasons. In addition, where the issue arises from the conduct or performance of the worker, he or she should be afforded an opportunity to address the decision maker in his or her defence.

There is no submission before the Court that these basic elements of fair procedure were applied in the case of the worker and the Court accepts that the sudden termination of her employment without warning has had a significant effect upon her.”

In conclusion, I find that the termination of the was not fair and she should receive compensation as a result.