Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

An IT Specialist

An IT Company

Representatives

Gareth Kyne

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00068981-001

31/01/2025

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

CA-00068981-003

31/01/2025

The worker commenced employment with the employer on 22 April 2024.  His employment ended on 16 December 2024.  He was paid €5,000 gross per month.

In his complaint form the worker submitted that he was not afforded fair procedures during his employment and his termination was disguised as a performance related termination when that was not the reason for it.

At the hearing the worker stated that all was well at work until October 2024 and no issues had been raised with him regarding his performance. He was surprised to then learn that a decision had been made to extend his probation by two months. The worker questioned how he could improve his performance when no problems had been brought to his attention.

The worker stated that his manager failed to appraise him of what he needed to improve.  There was nothing in writing about what was required of him. There were “ad hoc” meetings with his manager but these were not satisfactory.

The worker returned from holidays in early December and was called to a meeting with the HR Manager and his Line Manager, without notice. He was told at that meeting by his Line Manager that he did not think he could continue [in his job]. When the worker asked why he was told that he was not performing well.  The worker felt there was no point talking so he decided to go and make a complaint. At this meeting the worker stated that he thought he was being discriminated against.

The worker stated that he received a letter about four hours after the meeting confirming that he had been dismissed.  The letter did not mention any appeal mechanism.

The worker stated that he had no opportunity to appeal the decision to end his employment. He believes he was treated differently because of his race. He feels he was not treated with respect in this whole episode.

In closing, the worker stated that he was treated unfairly as regards to the processes involved.  He should have been made aware of the issues surrounding his performance in writing. He has no issue with being terminated. He is not seeking financial compensation but a moral victory.

The employer’s HR Manager stated that she met with the worker in October 2024.  She believed he had ability, but he was not performing as well as he should have been.  She discussed the situation with the worker’s Line Manager and it was decided to extend his probation. She denied the worker’s ethnic origins played any part in the decision; it was based on his performance and the feedback the employer was getting from clients with whom the worker was dealing.

The HR Manager stated that she had checked with the worker’s Line Manager as to whether he had given the worker any feedback on his performance and he said he had been, verbally.  When she checked with the worker, he agreed he had been given feedback but not in writing. She stated that the worker had been given time to improve and the decision to extend his probation was done to allow that happen.

The worker’s Line Manager attended the hearing. He stated that the worker needed to build a good relationship with the client company. The Line Manager stated that he had recruited the worker for the role as he had the appropriate experience.

The Line Manager mentioned a couple of areas in which the worker was falling short. However, in September it was decided that rather than terminate the worker’s job there and then it would be better to allow him some more time to prove himself. The Line Manager stated that he had many meetings with the worker during his employment, mostly to do with specific tasks, but sometimes on the worker’s performance.

A serious matter arose towards the end of the worker’s employment when the Line Manager found out that some work which fell to the worker to complete had in fact been done by someone else, causing problems with the client relationship. The Line Manager decided then not to continue with the remainder of the worker’s probation as he was not of value to the client company or the employer.

When asked whether he would have done anything differently in this matter, the Line Manager stated that he would have documented every meeting he had with the worker and laid out what was needed from him.

In closing, the employer’s representative stated that it was made clear to the worker that his performance was not up to what was required. He was provided with feedback by his Line Manager and he was given the opportunity to improve. Unfortunately, the worker’s performance did not improve and the employer’s decision to terminate his employment must be recognised as being fair.

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

Although the procedures used in the run up to the worker’s dismissal could have been better, particularly in the provision of written feedback, it is the employer’s prerogative to decide on whether an employee is performing to the level required or not.  In this case the employer decided the worker was not performing to the standard required and decided to dismiss him.

At the time of his dismissal the worker was on probation. The employer had a contractual right to dismiss him on performance grounds without reason.

I recommend the worker accept the processes involved in the lead up to his dismissal and the decision of the employer to terminate his employment.

I recommend the worker accept the processes involved in the lead up to his dismissal and the decision of the employer to terminate his employment.

Probation, performance, feedback