Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Payroll Processor

Retail Shop

Representatives

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 - 00003713

29/01/2025

This hearing was conducted in person in the Workplace Relations Commission situate in Lansdowne Road, Dublin. In line with the Supreme Court decision in the constitutional case of Zalewski -v- An Adjudication Officer and the Workplace Relations Commission and Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 (delivered on the 6th of April 2021) the hearing was conducted in recognition of the fact that all formal hearings should be conducted fairly. The hearing was not conducted in public as it concerned a dispute brought under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act of 1969.

Industrial Relations disputes are primarily heard on the basis of factual submissions provided by the respective parties. Relevant parties might be invited to give an oral recollection of events, facts and matters within their knowledge. Testimony may be subject to rebuttal by witnesses or other relevant contradicting evidence provided by the other side.

The specific Details of the Dispute are outlined in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which was received by the WRC on the 29th of January 2025.

The Complainant was not represented and made her own case. The Complainant alleges that she was unfairly dismissed. As the Complainant had less than twelve months service, the Complainant brought this matter to the attention of the WRC by way of an industrial relations dispute. It is noted that the Complainant was dismissed (on the 3rd of December 2024) by her line Manager for not meeting required standards under probation. No right of appeal lay to this decision and the Complainant instead raised a formal complaint with her line Manager’s line Manager CL. A portion of this complaint (dated the 7th of December 2024) is included in the workplace relations complaint form as follows :

I was treated badly while working at CL, and my probation period was terminated. This caused me a lot of stress, and I feel that it's not right to treat staff this way. I would like to make a formal complaint about how I was treated during my time there. Please read through the following that I sent to CL and discussed when I met with him.

Dear CL,

Firstly, I would like to apologize for writing all of this down, as it’s something I’ve never done before. However, I felt it was necessary due to the immense stress I’ve been experiencing. My primary concern is that no one, especially young adults starting their work experience, should have to go through the same challenges I faced. To address this, I sought advice from professional bodies, who recommended I first discuss this with you before considering sending this to the WRC.

They also mentioned that you may not be fully aware of M’s behaviour and attitude, which I’ve outlined below.

1. M would often stop me from speaking. Before S went on maternity leave, she trained me, and I made step-by-step notes, which I printed out, as M had said no one would help me if I didn’t make notes. While working based on these notes, M would get angry, saying I was working more slowly than S did. I had no prior experience with the systems, yet M would repeatedly raise her voice, saying, "STOP, STOP!" and wouldn’t let me explain that I was following S’s instructions.

2. M criticized me unnecessarily. While opening a paper bag to process cash receipts, M angrily shouted, “STOP RATTLING THE BAG!” I was simply preparing the receipts, and I found her reaction completely out of proportion…..

I have considered the entirety of this document which ran to some six pages. I have additionally carefully listened to the Complainant’s personal account of her employment with CL and have assessed her demeanour throughout this process

Where it also became necessary, I explained how the Adjudication process operated with particular emphasis on the burden of proof which had to be attained by the Complainant in the first instance.

Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute. 

The Respondent did not attend. The Respondent was aware of the date, time and venue for this in-house hearing and chose not to attend. I have, instead, received a submission on behalf of the Respondent dated the 21st of August 2025 which runs to four pages, and which sets out the Respondent’s position.

I sought to clarify with the Respondent that there would be no representation at the hearing by having an email sent in the following terms:

Dear Sir,

The Adjudicator has asked me to confirm with you, Mr. CL, that you will not be attending the hearing listed for the 3rd of September next?

If you do not attend the Adjudicator has indicated that she will certainly consider the submission you have made.

If anything arises outside of the scope of the submission made, the Adjudicator wants it noted that the Complainant's evidence will be regarded as being unchallenged.

Kind regards,

The Respondent replied as follows:

Thank you for your email, and I acknowledge the points outlined.

With respect we confirm that we will not be in attendance on the day.

We believe, however, that the submission provided sets out the company’s position accurately and addresses all matters that the employee has ever raised with the company during the Complainant's employment with us.

We thank the Adjudicating Officer in advance for taking our submission into consideration.

I am therefore satisfied that the Respondent is on notice of the fact that the Complainant has been given every opportunity to make her case and that I have made whatever further inquiry I have deemed necessary so as to satisfy myself of the nature of the relationship between the parties herein.

The Respondent rejects that there has been an unfair dismissal and has asserted that there were concerns around the Complainant’s performance during her period of probation which meant that the employer was not in a position to retain the Complainant.

I have carefully considered the Complainant’s position and narrative as against the submission prepared by the Respondent company in response to the dispute herein being lodged with the WRC.

The Complainant has always worked as a payroll and accounts officer and was contacted by a third party recruitment officer when a position came up in the Respondent company payroll and accounts department. It is important to note that the Complainant was interviewed by M who would subsequently become her line manager. The Complainant was successful and was employed by the Respondent CL from the 22nd of July 2024. The Complainant was happy with the move as it represented a bump in salary.

The Contract of Employment states that there was a six-month probationary period during which time the management team would regularly assess and monitor performance and progress. If feedback is given, there is an expectation that it would be listened to. If an employee is deemed unsuitable to continue, then the employee will be let go.

As I understand it the Complainant worked on site for the first few months and then worked two days remotely and three days on site for the balance of her time. The accounts office deal with 5 stores with merchandise in and out and up to eighty employees. At the start of her employment the Complainant was trained up by S who was due to go on maternity leave within six weeks of the Complainant’s arrival.

The Complainant is very clear that a large component of her start up period was taking control of the payroll system which was coming in-house after a period of being outsourced. The Complainant had done payroll before in previous workplaces. The Complainant was asked to pick a payroll system that was both cost effective and user friendly. To do this the Complainant was obliged literally to do Google searches as part of her selection process. The Complainant eventually landed on a system known as Brightpay.

The Complainant had to become proficient in this Brightpay system on her own and stated in evidence that she was constantly referring to demo videos and contacting the Brightpay support centre to make sure she was performing this function correctly. The Complainant is confident that during her employment (except for one issue once) payroll was processed accurately and on time. The one issue concerned the non-inclusion of expenses for one employee once. This was rectified immediately. The Complainant stated that she worked methodically and carefully through this aspect of her role.

The Complainant asserts that she had to fully self-train herself in this aspect of work. The Complainant confirmed that S gave the Complainant training in the accounts payable and suppliers side of the business and that S was excellent at this and allowed the Complainant to take notes and take screenshots of every step to allow the Complainant fully to comprehend the requirements of the job. Unfortunately, S had to leave a little earlier than expected which meant that the Complainant now had to rely on M, her line Manager, to assist with any queries that might arise.

I have formed the view, based on uncontradicted evidence provided by the Complainant, that M demonstrated very little patience or tolerance when it came to the Complainant. The Complainant says M was very short tempered. The Complainant gave evidence that M seemed to resent having to assist the Complainant and was impatient if the Complainant raised issues, telling the Complainant to use your brain or saying I’ve already shown you. The Complainant stated that M was not good at training as she moved too fast and did not allow the Complainant take screen shots and notes as S had done.

Before long the Complainant had become wary and apprehensive about addressing any issues she might have had with M, who seemed resentful of having to share her knowledge with the Complainant. The Complainant felt intimidated and pressurised. Another employee A who worked from home offered more support to the Complainant than M did. The Complainant did get assistance from that quarter.

The Complainant described M as having a level of unreasonable irritability with the Complainant who had to open paper bags filled with till receipts coming in from each of the shops. It seems the scrunching noise made by the bags became a flashpoint for expressing anger at the Complainant. Stop rattling that bag she would say. It became so the Complainant could not do that task if M was in the office or did the task at home out of earshot. The Complainant states that she never saw M treat anyone the same as she herself was treated and felt that M demonstrated intolerance grounded on her Asian ethnicity.

The Complainant noted that CL who was the business owner and therefore M’s boss seemed nice but that she was afraid to speak out.

The Complainant noted that there were probationary reviews. These were conducted by M. The first of these is fully documented and seems to have occurred in mid-August 2024. This is confusing as it is described as the midpoint probation review. This assessment seems to have happened less than one month into the employment. I have read through the document. The feedback from the employee is good and whilst there are some issues raised there are no significant problems raised by M. There is certainly no suggestion that the Complainant is failing probation and needs to drastically improve her performance.

Thereafter I have not seen any feedback documentation from any of the assessments purportedly made and I am satisfied that at no stage was the Complainant put on notice that her role was in jeopardy by reason of poor performance.

It has been suggested to me in the Respondent’s submission that a follow up probation meeting was held on the 20th of September but I have not seen any probation review form for this meeting and I cannot find evidence that areas of her performance that were still considered a concern, and tangible examples were outlined to the Complainant to help support her in the role was ever actually done.

In the Respondent’s submission prepared for the benefit of the WRC hearing, I note that there are two to three pages of feedback which was purportedly put to the Complainant over the course of her employment. I can find no evidence of this having, in fact, been the case. There is certainly nothing to corroborate this assertion made by the Employer.

On the 19th of November, some four months into this employment, M terminated the Complainant’s role with CL stating that the Complainant had unfortunately not demonstrated the skills required at this point. I accept that the Complainant was blindsided by this decision. The Complainant gave specific evidence that on the date that she was terminated her employer had no cause to be concerned with the quality of her work to that date. Every task expected of her had been completed to a high standard and on time. The issue, the Complainant suggesting, lay squarely with M.

In the aftermath of the termination of her employment, the Complainant did communicate her dissatisfaction with how she had been treated. She wrote a lengthy Grievance to CL directly on the 25th of November 2024 (at which time the Complainant was working out her notice period so was, therefore, still an employee).

CL says he had a meeting with the Complainant on the 7th of December 2024. I have no idea what that meeting was about or what effort was made by CL to consider the Complainants issues. Again, there is no contemporaneous note of what was discussed. Certainly, the Complainant did not come away from that meeting happy with the outcome.

I am noting, for what it is worth, that CL has prepared a submission for the WRC based on what seems to be his and M’s perception of what has happened here. There is no suggestion that a critical and fair appraisal has been made.

On balance, I am satisfied that the Complainant has, indeed, been unfairly dismissed. I can see no transparency around what criteria were used to measure the Complainant’s work performance and I am finding that the submission presented by the Respondent herein (some nine months after the termination) is an attempt to shore up an unfair decision to dismiss.

There is an obligation on the parties to a dispute to be able to demonstrate that they have engaged in a good faith process of resolution before presenting any matter to the WRC. The WRC should be seen as the last port of call. Not the first. There is an expectation that parties will have exhausted the workplace mechanisms for bringing grievance or complaint. In these circumstances, I am finding that eh Complainant did lodge a Grievance on the 25th of November 2024 against her line manager and that this was not investigated in the usual way.

I accept that Complainant’s evidence that she was devastated by the actions of the employer herein. It is to her credit that the Complainant went on to secure alternative employment within a short period albeit at a slightly less rate of pay.