Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Security Worker

An Employer

Representatives

MurphyHR

 Peninsula Business Services Ireland

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 - 00003899 IR - SC - 00003898

03/03/2025

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

IR - SC - 00003900

03/03/2025

The complainant was employed by the respondent as a security operative and assigned to a third-party company. Her employment was terminated in the course of her probation after some four months. She says that there was no basis for doing so and that her work or performance had never been the subject of any criticism.

In separate complaints under the Unfair Dismissals Acts and the Employment Equality Acts she sought to say that the termination was a response to events in her relationship with an employee of the third party company and that this caused the respondent to terminate her employment

She asserts that the stated reason for her dismissal, that she was not a "suitable fit for the role’ was a pretext and that it was ‘retaliatory and discriminatory’, arising directly from her rejection of an inappropriate and coercive relationship initiated by a senior manager (Mr. A)  from the client company.

Mr. A offered career mentorship and advancement to cultivate a personal relationship, his behaviour created an intimidating, hostile, and offensive working environment for the complainant.

The situation changed when the complainant discovered Mr. A was married.  After she confronted him and warned that she would report his behaviour to the respondent management, he became hostile. He threatened to have her transferred and implied he could influence the termination of the respondent contract with the client company.

On 10th December 2024, immediately after working an extra night shift requested by the respondent, the complainant was sent a letter terminating her employment citing her short service and lack of suitability for the role. There were no warnings or disciplinary procedures. When she contacted Mr. A, he denied any knowledge of the decision.

The complainant appealed the dismissal on 11th December. A meeting was held on 23rd December 2024, and the appeal was rejected on 21st January.

The claim under the Industrial Relations Act 1990, relates to her dismissal and the complete lack of fair procedure. The respondent’s action of summarily dismissing the Complainant without any process, investigation, or right to be heard is a serious breach of the principles of natural justice and fair industrial relations practices.

The complainant was an employee who was targeted and harassed by a person in a position of power. When she opposed this conduct, she was systematically penalised and ultimately dismissed from her job.

The respondent failed to provide a safe work environment and appears to have capitulated to the demands of its client's manager, sacrificing its own employee in the process.

The respondent is a security company, and the complainant was employed as a security officer between the August 26 2024 and December 10th, 2024.

She  has taken claims under the Industrial Relations Act 1969 and (in a separate reference) under the Employment EqualityAct1998 and the Unfair Dismissals Actstatingthatshewasunfairlydismissedfor discriminatoryreasons.

The respondent rejects these allegations.

On December 4th, 2024, the Training Manager for the respondent wrote a report on the conduct of the complainant  in dealing with a colleague from a different country to her. A copy of this document was submitted.

On December 5th, 2024, the respondent Account Manager, emailed his colleagues setting out the complainant’s poor work performance. He noted that she  was struggling with all aspects of her work and had a difficult relationship with a number of her colleagues. It also asserted that she had made a number of malicious comments which her supervisors believed to be race related.

It was also noted the complainant  refused to work in a number of locations and claimed to be claustrophobic. It should be noted the complainant  did not indicate any difficulties or concerns on her health assessment form when she commenced working.

In all the circumstances based on her poor work performance and her inability to fulfil any tasks the Respondent decided to proceed with a short service dismissal of the complainant .

On the 10th of December 2024 the complainant was advised in writing  of the termination as she had failed to demonstrate suitability for the role. She  was advised of her ability to appeal this decision.

The respondent says that a number of conduct and performance issues had arisen with the complainant  and that these were the subject of internal  reports in the days leading up to the termination of her employment.

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

There is a confusing an unnecessary overlap in the complaints submitted under this Act of which three have been initially identified as specific complaints; (now down to two) one of these being described as a complaint of ‘unfair dismissal’.

Another separate complaint is that the complainant was subjected to disciplinary sanctions ‘up to and including dismissal’.

There is no provision for such complaints in the Industrial Relations Act which provides only for the referral of a ‘trade dispute’, nor is there any justification for identifying separate complaints in the manner that has been done here, although for reasons that are not clear the WRC Manual Complaint Form invites complainants to do so.

The third ‘complaint’ was a request that a trade dispute be investigated, although no submission has been made identifying what that dispute actually is.

The manner in which the complainant’s employment was terminated is obviously at the core of this case. I have dealt in a separate Decision with her attempts to link it to the alleged conduct of a third party employee and found that this case had no merit whatsoever.

The evidence of the respondent’s key witness in the case, and the person who took the decision to terminate the employment, was that he knew nothing of  that relationship and that it played no part in his decision.

This is borne out by his email of December 5th, 2024, which contains a series of very serious allegations about the complainant’s conduct and performance, and which are unconnected to her relationship with Mr. A.

The respondent submitted that it decided to apply a ‘short service’ termination.

While it is to be assumed that this a way of describing the fact that the complainant was on probation the respondent’s witness confirmed at the hearing that none of the serious allegations in either of the relevant documents (the report of December 4th and his email of the following day) were actually put to the worker to enable her to make a response.

There was no conversation between the parties as to the merits of the allegations.

Even allowing for the fact that she was on probation this is unacceptable from the point of view of the related principles of fair procedure and elementary courtesy, and the respondent admitted as much at the hearing.

Accordingly she is entitled to a remedy, and I recommend that the respondent pay her €3,500.00 by way of compensation for the breach of her rights to a process appropriate to the circumstances of the case.

This award is not liable for taxation or other statutory deductions. This addresses all aspects of the termination and both complaints referred to above and no other issue arises to be dealt with.

Fair Procedure, Probation