Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A manager

A facilities Management Company

Representatives

  In person

 Did not attend.

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 - 00002816

01/07/2024

The worker commenced employment with the employer on 4th December 2023. Employment ended on 27th June 2024.

This complaint was received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 1st July 2024.

It should be noted that in  complaints submitted under the Industrial Relations Act the complainant is referred to as the worker and the respondent is referred to as the employer.

In his own words the worker informed the hearing of the following:

·        I was invited to a Probation Review Meeting on 21 June not a disciplinary hearing so when I was afforded the right to have a witness at the meeting, I had no reason to consider one necessary as I had already passed the end of the 6 months’ probation and therefore had passed the probation already. Calling this a “formal hearing” is not what I was invited to in the company letter of 27 June. I am unable to produce the invite proving this as my laptop was taken from me on 21 June

·        The meeting lasted less than two minutes once the HR Manager who was late for the meeting finally arrived and all that was said to me was that this would be a difficult conversation and immediately stated we have decided to let you go due to a "breach of trust and confidence", no explanation was given, no facts presented, no discussion to consider any allegations made by the Operations Director or answer any issues. This is a breach of the company's own rules which says disciplinary issues go through a two-step process, first an investigation meeting is supposed to take place by an independent manager, interviewing both sides to see if there is a case to answer and if it is felt there is it then goes to a disciplinary meeting where the appropriate action is taken and then an appeals process which again against company process was not possible due to the fact a replacement had already been appointed before the probation review meeting. Had I known we were in even an investigation meeting never mind a dismissal meeting I would have had a witness.

·        Paragraph 3 of the attached dismissal letter states "with due regard for all the circumstances", how can all due regard have been shown if my side of any claims had not been heard.

·        Paragraph 4 states the dismissal is based on my performance and conduct over the course of my employment, further stating that standards subject to audit had fallen below expected standards. No indication of these issues was raised with me at any time and I do not believe to be factual. I have very limited documented information as my laptop was seized by the company immediately following the hearing but even the two documents attached show performance was meeting all audit requirements.

·        Final paragraph states I have the right to appeal the decision within 5 days, this was not followed as (company name redacted) obviously had no intention of hearing an appeal in reality as:

o   This letter was issued 6 days after the hearing

o   More importantly a (company name redacted) staff member was advised less than 5 minutes after the meeting on 21 June that a replacement had already been recruited and would be starting on the following Monday so any appeal would be pointless All these issues show beyond doubt that this was an unfair dismissal, in summary: 

o   Probation already expired.

o   No investigation as per the company HR procedures

o   No disciplinary meeting as per the company HR procedures

o   Unable to appeal the decision as within 5 minutes of the “probation review meeting” the Operations Director had rung one of the site managers and advised them of this outcome and assured them “nothing to worry about as a replacement had already been recruited starting the following Monday”

o   The only failure to follow a specific instruction that I can think they are referring to is the one regarding rosters was in fact followed by an amendment to my initial plan to meet the Operations Director’s wishes even though the client and the staff were more than happy with this approach

o   The specific facts regarding scores presented in the attachments prove the failings during my tenure occurred while I was not onsite but the Operations Director was responsible for at that time

o   No details of any issues with my performance had been raised by Operations Director in my 1:1 meeting which were due to take place each month ahead of probation completion but only happened twice and a third one nearly happened, but the MD called, and the time was spent with her on the phone to him, nothing was brought forward before leaving preventing further information gathering to further challenge this dismissal.

o   One client issue shared with me was that at the first weekly performance meeting after I went on holiday, they had to call an emergency meeting afterwards due to their concern over the lack of knowledge of some of the contract shown by the Operations Manager.

The employer did not attend the hearing of the complaint.

By letter dated 13th January 2025 the employer informed:

I am writing on behalf of (company name redacted) concerning the above referenced case, which is scheduled for a hearing on 22 January 2025.

Please be advised that no representative from (company name redacted will be present at the hearing to defend the complaints under the Industrial Relations Act.

In the event that the Complainant submits any additional complaints, we respectfully request to receive a copy of these and be afforded the opportunity to respond accordingly.

I note that in the instant case the worker commenced employment on 4th December 2023, employment was subject to the completion of a 6-month probationary period, this expired on 3rd June 2024, the worker was dismissed on 27th June 2024.

As per complaint form the worker has clearly stated:

“Company procedures were not followed, I was invited to a probation review meeting despite this being after the end of the probation period in relation to dismissal and I would also dispute the details set out in the Notification letter, all that was stated in the meeting was it was due to a breakdown of trust. No indication of an issue with my performance had been raised and the client had stated that they were very happy with the work I was doing”.

In a decision of the Labour Court in January 2011 ((Irish Postmasters Union and A Worker) the Labour Court overturned a decision of a rights commissioner and awarded the worker a substantial amount of money. The finding of the Labour Court in this case is instructive and the principal finding was that the employer’s decision not to

‘adhere to either its own disciplinary procedures or be bound by the provisions of the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures S.I. No 146 of 2000 because he was on probation, was misconceived’.

Employees on probation are entitled to natural justice and fundamentally fair procedures.

In the instant case the worker was subjected to what I would deem to be an ambush on 21st June 2024. No fair procedures were utilised, and I believe the decision to dismiss him was made in advance of this meeting. There was no management intention even to listen to what the worker had to say.

I now find in favour of the worker and recommend that the employer pay compensation to the worker in the sum of €12,500. Such sum should be paid within 42 days from the date of this recommendation.

Probationary period of employment.