Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Administrator

Not for profit organisation

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 - 00003602

28/12/2024

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/2020 which said instrument designates the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings pursuant to Section 31 of the Principal Act. The said remote hearing was set up and hosted by an appointed member of the WRC administrative staff. I am satisfied that no party was prejudiced by having this hearing conducted remotely.  I am also satisfied that I was in a position to fully exercise my function, and I made all relevant inquiries in the usual way.

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 28th of December 2024. The dispute therein raised reads as follows:

“I failed my first probation due to lack of training from my team lead There was a training plan put in place which she failed to adhere to. I have had to train myself in this role. I had a second probation meeting last week and that was refused due to lack of training again resulting in minor errors and the letter stating that I was confused in training which is untrue. In the handbook for this company they state that all training must be signed off. This has not happened. All of my one to ones were passed so I need answers as to why I am been pushed out again.”

The Complainant herein gave a lengthy account of her employment with the Respondent – which is a not for profit entity. I was provided with all of the relevant documentation. The Complainant’s final submission read as follows:

The reason for my bringing this case is the unfair termination of my employment with          in 23rd January of this year. I am disputing this reasoning due to the non-existent training model in this company. The training procedure consists of employees managing their own heavy workload been made responsible for the training of new hires. Most of the training was repetitive and focused on the same procedures within the system and did not move on to allow a full and complete responsibility of the role. In the document provided to me from Management of training dates are inconsistent and unrealistic as I was on annual leave for some of the training and in other areas, I was not granted access to systems by my line manager to perform the tasks. When I had my first probation extension meeting it was decided by management that there would be a tailored training schedule put in place. This was started but never finished. There was a lack of communication within the team as to exactly what area we should be working on and when. There were no clear and concise instructions from management on which area we should be working on at any given time. I have requested signed copies of these training sessions to clarify the exact training I have received to date. The head of HR stated that your google calendar is evidence of your training. As in any office environment I have been invited to training sessions which have been cancelled or resulted in a no show. The dates of my training outlined are also inconsistent, I have also highlighted these discrepancies in the documented below to add to this, I have also had very successful one to ones which is inconsistent with these reasonings. I was also still working in these areas successfully which is also inconsistent with the findings.

The Respondent was represented by its own head of HR. I was brought through the chronology of events from the start of employment to the end of December of 2024. All the relevant correspondence was opened to me.

The Respondent asserts that it was entitled to extend the Complainant’s probationary period in the manner that it did in circumstances where the Complainant’s performance was sub-par. In it’s final submission the Respondent noted its position as follows:

The organisation is aware that probation periods should not be extended beyond a 6-month period but we felt that this was an exceptional basis and done with the intention that it was in AK best interest.  

Ms. K was a good cultural fit for the organization, she was well liked and understood our ethos and we believe enjoyed working for a non-profit organisation. However, Ms. K performance when it came to the more technical parts of her role were not at an acceptable level for an Assistant. There were continuous mistakes and confusion over the systems, and it was deemed that that a decision would have to be made to either not pass probation period or to extend. We chose to extend as this was in Ms. K’s best interest.  

We refute that Ms. K did not receive adequate training. She received significantly more training than any of contemporary’s, the other 7 Assistant’s employed in similar roles.  

Ms. K would have received a mixture of on-the-job training. One to one sessions with her line manager, peer – to peer training and in the later part of her employment more extensive refresher training on specific focus areas that she was either struggling with or had not be able to proceed with further development of duties. 

The errors and mistakes Ms. K  was making were relayed to her as they were discovered such as spreadsheet errors, mistakes on finance systems which resulted in non-payments to suppliers, and significant time spent from our accounts team in tracing mistakes with rent & share payments from tenants. 

Discovery could be weeks or months after some of the inaccuracies. In fact, we as recently as last month ago found a spreadsheet error leading to shares being paid into incorrect bank accounts. This then involved significant time and effort to rectify. 

We are sorry that Ms. K  feels she was treated unfairly. But the organsiation’s position is that we were both fair and very supportive in extending probation period to assist her by giving more time and further training. 

In response to Ms. K submission claim that training did not occur we would like to point out that her submission claim is missing two pages of training dates that were already provided to her on the 20th of January correspondence.

I have carefully considered the evidence adduced by both parties herein.

At the outset, it should be noted that the Complainant’s employment was terminated in and around January 2025. The Respondent was not happy to deal with the issue of the termination of this employment as this was not a part of the case made by the Complainant in this December 2024 complaint form. I am therefore limited to a consideration of those matters which gave rise to the Complainant bringing this dispute before the WRC in December of 2024.

The Complainant came from 30 years of management experience and felt she was well capable of performing this administrative position in the not for profit sector. The Complainant commenced her employment in March of 2024. The Complainant was aware of the fact that there was a probationary period and the company handbook set out the details as follows:

All new employees are required to satisfactorily complete a probationary period of a minimum of 6 months.  The probationary period gives… the Respondent….the time to ensure that you are suitable for the position and gives you the time to ensure that the position is suitable for you. During your probationary period your performance, progress and attendance will be regularly monitored and reviewed.  Management will ensure that you are fully assisted in understanding and becoming familiar with the demands of your position and that there is full discussion between you and your line manager about any problems or difficulties.  This will allow you to come to terms with the requirements of the job as outlined in the job description and the tasks set out for you during the probationary period.  Your line manager will ensure that tasks set out for you and expectation of performance during the probationary period are realistic.

….the Respondent… reserves the right to terminate your employment at any time during the probationary period should you fail to meet its standards of work and conduct.  The period of probation may be extended if … the Respondent… deems it necessary.  The period of probation will not, in any event, be extended beyond 11 months.   

Probation is in two phases.  After 3 months working with … the Respondent…, your line manager will arrange a formal meeting which will provide both of you an opportunity to discuss any performance or attendance issues.  It will also provide an opportunity to discuss the progress and developmental needs that may arise during that period.  The formal meeting will review progress against key tasks set out for the period.  At that stage if there are any shortcomings, identified measures will be agreed with you to support you in improving your performance.  The opportunity will also be there to discuss any barriers that may exist to the work and to agree ways to eliminate these.  A record of this meeting will be signed by you and your line manager and placed on your personnel file.  Contributions made by you during this period will be acknowledged in the meeting report.  

A further formal meeting will be held during the final month of your probationary period to discuss progress since your mid-term review meeting.  This meeting will review progress against key tasks set out for the period.  It will also review the success or otherwise of any measures that had been put in place to assist you in improving performance.  A record of this meeting will be signed by you and your line manager and will be placed on your personnel file.  Subject to satisfactory performance, your permanent status will then be confirmed to you in writing.  If, however, management are not satisfied with performance, progress and attendance at that stage, …the Respondent … may extend your probationary period for a further period or your employment may be terminated.

Concerning the termination of employment it is noted that:

If you are subject to a probationary period, the period of notice required from either you or the Society to terminate your employment during the probationary period is one week.  Unless your Contract of employment states otherwise, the period of notice required from either you or the Society to terminate your employment is one month or such longer period as may be required by law.

The Complainant was first reviewed in June of 2024, and nothing in particular was raised at this online meeting. However, at the next meeting held in September of 2023 – which should have concluded the contract specified six-month probationary period - issues were raised such that the Complainant’s probationary period was extended for a further period up to December of 2024. The Complainant was very much aggrieved that she had been allowed to presume that there was no problem for a full six months as nothing of concern was raised at the three-month marker. She returned to this issue on a number of occasions. I accept that the Complainant was let down by the Employer in this regard.

I have seen the correspondence arising out of the meeting of September of 2024 and there is no doubt that the Employer was concerned with a number of areas of the Complainant’s performance and a schedule of training was created for the purpose of ongoing review, providing assistance and upskilling between September and December.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am accepting that the Employer was conscious that the Complainant needed training and did its upmost to provide training. I can accept that sometimes training got pushed back or was not completed, but the list of training dates provided by the Respondent does seem generous and suggests the Respondent wanted the Complainant to succeed. To this end I note that the Respondent witness confirmed that the Complainant had been a good fit for the Respondent and was well liked in the workplace.

However, it does seem that mistakes were being made and that the technicalities of this role were not being quite grasped by the Complainant. By December of 2024 matters had seemingly not greatly improved. A further probationary meeting was called, and the Complainant was given a final two months probationary period to improve performance.

It was at this point that the Complainant issued a workplace relations complaint form concerning this issue.

On balance, I accept that the Complainant was right to feel aggrieved that where no issue was raised concerning her performance after three months (June 2024), she was left in a difficult position when significant issues were raised at the six-month point (Sept 2024). The Respondent has not satisfactorily explained how this happened. In consequence of the foregoing, the Complainant was only told that her job was in jeopardy after already having completed a six-month period in the role. This was really unfair on the Complainant. The Respondent ought to have recognised its own internal failures when the Complainant pointed this fact out to them. The Respondent should further have given the Complainant a six-month period to improve her performance from September of 2024 in recognition of the fact that it had failed to give any meaningful guidance and or assessment for the first six months in her role.