Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Sales Representative

A Nutrition Company

Representatives

Self

None

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Dispute seeking adjudication under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00003183

25/09/2024

The Worker was employed as a sales representative from 15th July 2024 to 23rd September 2024. The dispute relates to the Worker’s dismissal from the company. As the Worker 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.

The Worker stated that she had been head hunted from a large company that she had worked at for many years. The Employer in the within case is a smaller company that was looking to grow it’s business and is a rival of the Worker’s previous employer. The Worker was stunned when she was let go after only 10 weeks. 

The Worker and a colleague received an email on Friday 20th September 2024 which stated as follows:

“I think it is time to get together and review the sales progress made so far.

Please arrive in the office by or before 9am Monday.

Make sure you bring all your tablets/ipads, lap tops etc with you.”

The Worker said she spent the weekend doing up a whole report of the work carried out so far in preparation for this meeting. She had no probation meetings at all thus far and this was her first opportunity to report on the work carried out. She and her colleague were met with together and both were told at the same time “it was not working out”. No further details were given and no explanation was received about why her employment was being terminated. She believes that her work was outstanding and there was no reason to suggest otherwise so being summarily dismissed in this manner was a huge shock to her.

The end of her employment had an enormous effect on both the Worker’s personal and professional life.

The Employer did not attend the adjudication hearing and was not represented.

An email was received from the Employer prior to the hearing which stated that the Worker was found to be unsuitable for the position and therefore her employment was reluctantly terminated. The email went on to say that the Employer would not be represented at the hearing and was no longer engaging in the process. The Employer believed it had followed company procedures surrounding the contractually agreed probation period during which the Worker’s employment was terminated and it does not accept the complaint.

It is unfortunate that the Employer did not attend the adjudication hearing to put forward its position in relation to the dispute, despite initially agreeing to do so. The email received, and outlined above, states that it believed that it had followed company procedures. However, in not attending the hearing, I am unaware what those company procedures are and whether or not they constitute fair procedures.

Having considered the matter, I note that no performance issues were raised with the Worker. It appears that there was no opportunity for her challenge this summary dismissal or appeal the decision to terminate her employment.

I note the findings of the Labour Court in Labour Court Recommendation LCR22710 where it awarded €10,000 in compensation to a worker who was denied fair procedures when she was dismissed during the probationary period for performance issues that she was unaware of and not given the opportunity to address. The Court in that decision stated:

“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.”

As the Employer in the within case did not attend the hearing, I am unable to ascertain the precise reason for the termination of the Worker’s employment. The only reason offered is that she was “found to be unsuitable”. In the circumstances, it appears to me that the facts in this case are similar to that in LCR22710. There is no indication that there was any process put in place by the Employer which afforded the Worker the opportunity to address any issues which had arisen. I therefore cannot see that the Worker was offered any fair procedures prior to the termination of her employment.

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

Unfair dismissal – Industrial Relations Act