Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Vendor Retention Specialist

A Wedding Planning Company

Representatives

  Self Represented

Not present

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Industrial relations act 1969

CA-00069773

5 March 2025

The Worker was dismissed during his probation and claimed he was dismissed without cause or fair procedures.

The Worker was employed from October 14th 2024 to February 28th 2025 as a Vendor Retention Specialist.

He had high sales, was told he was doing a great job and had no performance reviews

The Worker got no warning of his suspension which took place on February 24th 2025.

The Worker was told there were allegations against him but received no details of them.

The Worker was told he would be given the allegations at an Investigation meeting.

The Investigation meeting was set up and cancelled abruptly.

The Worker was dismissed without further communications on February 28th 2025.

The Worker stated he had no details of the allegations, no investigation meeting, no right to defend himself and no right of appeal.

The Employer did not attend the Hearing and alleged they did not receive the original notice from the WRC of the dispute and subsequently objected to the investigation of the dispute. In correspondence, the Employer stated they were contractually entitled to dismiss the Worker during probation with two weeks notice.

Background to the dispute;

A WRC hearing took place on September 18th 2025. The Employer Representative wrote to the WRC to advise that the Employer would not attend the hearing. As the Employer did not attend the hearing, the Adjudicator was deprived of any understanding of the Employer’s perspective and accepts the undisputed version of events submitted by the Worker.

The Worker asserts that he commenced employment on October 14th 2024. He contends that he was suspended on February 24th 2025 without explanation or justification. He stated he was invited to an Investigation meeting regarding allegations and he sought details of the allegations in advance of this planned meeting, which was then cancelled by the Employer. He stated he was then abruptly terminated without warning. There was no prior indication of performance issues, no warnings and no performance improvement plan. He was summarily dismissed without fair procedures or right of appeal.  

Objection to Investigation

A dispute notification was received by the WRC from the Worker on March 5th 2025. The WRC posted notification of the dispute to the Employer on March 11th 2025. Further correspondence was posted to the Employer on April 3rd 2025.  The WRC received a letter on April 10th 2025 from the Employers legal Representative seeking details of the complaint. On April 23rd 2025 the Employers Legal Representatives objected to the dispute being heard by the WRC on the basis the Employer had not received the letter dated March 11th 2025.

Section 36. of the Act states “—(1) An objection under section 13 (3) (b) (ii) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 , by a party to a trade dispute to an investigation of the dispute by a rights commissioner shall be of no effect unless it is notified in writing to the commissioner within three weeks after notice of the reference of the dispute to the commissioner has been sent”

I conducted a review of the correspondence on file for this complaint and am satisfied that the notification was posted to the Employer on March 11th 2025. I am equally satisfied with the bona fides of the Employer that they did not receive notice of the complaint until as they stated, the April 3rd letter.  However, the Act is crystal clear, an objection to a Hearing must be received within 21 days of it being sent. Therefore, I am satisfied to accept jurisdiction of the complaint. Having said that, I pointed out at the Hearing to the Worker, who represented himself, the voluntary nature of the Industrial Relations Act and that any Recommendation is not legally enforceable.

Submission of the Worker

The Worker attended the Hearing and made comprehensive submissions prior to the Hearing. He advised the Hearing his sales were one of the highest in the company, that all his 1 to 1 reviews rated him highly and that he had never received any warnings or poor performance reviews. He advised he was verbally told of vague allegations against him on February 24th 2025 and was later that day he was formally suspended. He requested details of the complaints but received few details. An Investigation meeting was scheduled for late February and then rescheduled to March 5th 2025. The Worker was notified by letter on February 28th 2025 that he was dismissed, The Worker was given no opportunity to defend his situation. The Employer had submitted in a letter to the WRC that the Worker had been terminated for contractual reasons.

Probationary Period

The Workers contract of employment included a 6 month probation period, which included the right to terminate during the probation with two weeks notice and a clause that stated the Workers performance and suitability would be monitored during probation.

Probation 

It is generally understood that the purpose of a probationary period at the commencement of employment is to provide an opportunity to monitor an employee’s suitability for the role and to address any performance related issues.  It allows an employer to review the progress of a new entrant in the day-to-day operations of the employer’s business.  To this end there is an obligation on an employer to ensure a structured approach to an employee’s probation period and performance should be managed and assessed in such a manner as to provide for a performance improvement plan with clear goals and reviews if and when an employee’s performance is found to be not meeting the required standard.  

Probation reviews should be conducted during the probation period in order to offer feedback on the various aspects of the employee’s performance and to highlight areas where improvement is required.  An employer should explain to an employee that they may be at risk of failing their probation if their performance does not meet the required standard.   At a minimum an employer must alert an employee to any issues and inform him/her of the consequence of termination of employment if the required improvement is not achieved.  

Notwithstanding, the success or failure of a worker’s period of probation is entirely a matter for an employer to determine.  I am not required to determine whether the Worker should have been dismissed during the probationary period or not as the case may be.  It is not my function to substitute my view for that of a Respondent employer.   My role is limited to an examination of the manner in which the termination of employment was undertaken by an employer.   It is important to note that the contract of employment included a duty on the Employer to monitor performance and suitability.

I note that whilst a worker with less than 12 months’ service does not enjoy the protections of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, the fact that a worker is on probation does not negate or obviate their entitlement to fair procedures. 

Precedent

The Labour Court has consistently set a standard in its Recommendations of requiring employers to operate fair procedures during and at the end of employment while the person is on probation, including the application of the principles of S.1. 146 of 2000. 

In this I am mindful of the recommendation of the Labour Court in Beechside Company Limited T/A Park Hotel Kenmare LCR21798 that provides as follows:

 “Where an employee is considered unsuitable for permanent employment, the Court accepts that an employer has the right, during a probationary period, to decide not to retain that employee in employment.  However, the Court takes the view that this can only be carried out where the employer adheres strictly to fair procedures.” 

 I have regard to the recommendation of the Labour Court in C&W O'Brien Architects v A Worker LCR22391 where the Court took into account the provisions of the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures (S.I. 146 of 2000) which, in the words of the Court: “emphasises the importance of ensuring that an employee is aware of any disciplinary procedure which is initiated in respect of her and to know any case being made against her and to have a fair opportunity to respond to any such case. The Code also emphasises the importance of the availability of an internal mechanism wherein a sanction which has been imposed can be appealed.” 

In eBay v. A Worker LCR22806 the Labour Court held as follows: 

“The Court has carefully considered the written and verbal submissions it received.  The Court is satisfied on the submissions before it that the Employer failed to adhere to the requirements of the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures made under Section 42 of the Industrial Relations Act 1990 and contained in SI 146 of 2000, before the decision to dismiss the claimant was taken.

The Code of Practice emphasises that good practice entails a number of stages in the discipline and grievance process and states at section 6 as follows: 

“6.  The procedures for dealing with such issues reflecting the varying circumstances of enterprises/organisations, must comply with the general principles of natural justice and fair procedures which include: 

·        That employee grievances are fairly examined and processed.

·        That details of any allegations or complaints are put to the employee concerned.

·        That the employee concerned is given the opportunity to respond fully to any such allegations or complaints.

·        That the employee concerned is given the opportunity to avail of the right to be represented during the procedure.

·        That the employee concerned has the right to a fair and impartial determination of the issues concerned, taking into account any representations made by, or on behalf of, the employee and any other relevant or appropriate evidence, factors, circumstances.”  

Under General Principles at section 4 the Code states as follows: 

“The essential elements of any procedures for dealing with grievance and disciplinary issues are that they be rational and fair, that the basis for disciplinary action is clear, that the range of penalties that can be imposed are well-defined and that an internal appeal mechanism is available.”  

 The Court has consistently held that an employer is not relieved of the obligation to act fairly during the probationary period and that the requirement of the Code of Practice applies in all circumstances in which a worker is on hazard of having his or her employment terminated. Having regard to all these considerations the Adjudicator has concluded that the Worker was treated unfairly in the manner in which his employment was terminated.  

The Adjudicator has given careful consideration to the Workers uncontested submissions on the matters before it. Based on those submissions the Adjudicator finds that the Employer terminated the workers  contract of employment on the basis of complaints about him and without affording him the opportunity to deny, rebut or explain them. The Adjudicator does not accept, given the fact the Worker was suspended on February 24th and then dismissed on February 28th with an Investigation meeting scheduled and then cancelled, that the complaints had nothing to do with his dismissal. Accordingly, the Adjudicator finds that the Employer failed to afford the Worker his entitlement to fair procedures before taking such a serious and far reaching decision that had a material affect on his personal and financial wellbeing.

Even if, as suggested in correspondence by the Employer, the Worker was dismissed as they were entitled to by the contract within the probation period, no evidence of fair procedure was offered as a defence by the Employer.

Applying the reasoning of the Labour Court set out above to the facts of this dispute, I can only conclude the Employer’s handling of the dismissal of the Worker was procedurally flawed and breached the Worker’s right to fair procedures and natural justice.  I note that the Worker was not afforded fair procedures in accordance with the S.I. No. 146/2000 - Industrial Relations Act, 1990 (Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures) (Declaration) Order, 2000.

Dismissal procedures