Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Gymnastics Coach

A Gymnastics Club

Representatives

Self-represented 

Did not attend the hearing

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00065796-001

04/09/2024

The worker is a gymnastics coach and a qualified physiotherapist.  On the date of this hearing, she was waiting for her application to practice as a physiotherapist to be registered with CORU, the regulatory body for health and social care professionals.

The worker is a Spanish national and, in an online search in late 2023, she came across the gymnastics club and saw that they were looking for a coach.  She was interviewed remotely by the head coach and offered a job commencing on November 14th 2023.  In the documents she submitted for the hearing, the worker included a copy of a statement of her conditions of employment.  This is referred to as a “Day 5 Statement.”  Under the heading, “Duration of Contract,” this document states as follows:

“There will be a provisional full-time contract (sic).  The employee is in the process of homologating her physiotherapy licence.  Therefore, once she knows what her commitments will be for 2024 the contract will be renewed.  This future contract may last for the duration of the season.”

On April 25th 2024, the worker received a second “Day 5 Statement” which shows that she was employed for one year “from the starting date,” although it is unclear if the starting date was November 14th 2023 or April 25th 2024.

Under the heading “Remuneration,” both statements show that the worker was to be paid what is referred to as “an initial basic amount” of €2,200, to be paid monthly on the first day of each month.  The worker said that, at her interview, she was informed that she would be paid €15.00 per hour.  The statement shows that the worker was expected to work for 35 hours each week, 23 of which were to be spent coaching, with the remaining hours dedicated to lesson planning, making routines and tracking the performance of participants.

Monthly pay of €2,200 results in an annual salary of €26,400 or weekly pay of €507.69.  Based on a requirement to work 35 hours each week, this is equivalent to an hourly rate of €14.50.

In December 2023, the worker said that she applied for a PPS number, but that she didn’t receive one until April 2024.

From early 2024, the worker said that there were delays with the payment of her wages.  She said that the money arrived in her account days after the first day of the month.  She said that she had to send emails to the club secretary to find out when she would be paid.  The worker included copies of documents from her bank which shows that her wages was transferred from the employer to her bank account on the following dates:

December 4th 2023:  €1,000

January 8th 2024:  €2,200

February 2nd 2024:  €2,200

March 11th 2024:  €2,200

April 3rd 2024:  €2,216

May 7th 2024:  €733

May 13th 2024:  €1,467 

June 28th 2024:  €3,850

The worker was not issued with a payslip for the wages she received between November 2024 and April 2025.  A payslip dated May 31st 2024 indicates that her gross pay that month was €2,303.67 and her net pay was €2,200.  There are no cumulative wages on this payslip, indicating that May 2024 was the first month that year for which payslips were processed and the first month for which PAYE, PRSI and USC was deducted.  At the hearing, the worker said that, on June 5th 2024, when they had not received their wages at the beginning of the month, the club secretary told the employees that they had to register with the Revenue Commissioners.

An email sent to the worker by the club secretary on July 10th 2024 states as follows:

“…we have paid taxes on your behalf on previous payments, so you will see a little less take-home pay now.” 

In early July 2024, the worker said that she was called into the office after a day spent working at a gymnastics camp for children.  She said that she was questioned about the club’s safeguarding policy.  She had given her phone number to two of the students and the club secretary told her that this wasn’t permitted.  She was told that she was observed not saying hello to a child and that another child tripped when she wasn’t paying attention.  The worker said that this meeting with the club secretary lasted for about an hour.  She was accused of having an “unconscious bias” in favour of some children and of showing signs of favouritism.  At the end of the meeting, the worker said that the club secretary told her that he didn’t intend to make her feel bad.  She said that she committed to making the improvements requested and she said that she wouldn’t communicate with the students by telephone.

The worker said that, earlier in 2024, she agreed with the head coach that she would take time off to attend a coaching workshop in the US between July 16th and September 10th.  She said that she accepted that she would receive less pay in August and September as a result.

When she was in the US, on Sunday, August 11th, the worker said that she received a WhatsApp message from the club secretary in which he apologised because her wages were late.  On Friday August 16th, he sent her an email asking to attend a virtual meeting the following Monday or Tuesday.  On Monday, August 19th, when he confirmed the meeting for Wednesday August 21st, the club secretary wrote that the purpose of the meeting was “to discuss some important updates within your role at the club.”

At the meeting on Wednesday, August 21st, the worker was dismissed.  The emails she submitted for the hearing at the WRC show that, at the virtual meeting, the club secretary read out a letter of dismissal which he sent to the worker that evening.  In the letter, he said that her employment was terminated “due to the requirements of the business and the fact that you are not the right fit for the role.”

In his email on the evening of August 21st, the club secretary told the worker that she was entitled to appeal against her dismissal.  He also informed her that, if she did not appeal, he would “begin processing your final statement of payment.”  He said that the amount owed to her was €2,361.88.  On August 28th, the worker sent an email to the club secretary to inform him of her decision to appeal.  On August 30th, she sent an email to the head coach and asked her to provide a reference “as you have kindly offered.”  On September 2nd, the head coach replied and said that she couldn’t send a reference until the appeal process was completed.  She said, “We can discuss references once we have an conclusion (sic) on the appeal.”  On September 4th 2024, the worker submitted this dispute to the WRC. 

On September 6th 2024, the worker received a copy of a disciplinary procedure from her former employer, written by the HR consultancy firm, Peninsula.  She attended an appeal of her dismissal on October 16th 2024.  The club secretary attended the meeting with the head coach and the worker attended with a colleague.  The employer made an audio recording of the meeting.  The worker and the employer provided me with transcripts of the recording.  The appeal made no difference to the decision to dismiss the worker.

Following the appeal, the worker asked to be paid her final wages.  On November 5th 2024, the club secretary wrote to her and said that the cost of her uniform would be deducted from her wages because it had been returned damaged.  He said that she had not returned a hot water bottle and an electric blanket and that she had failed to provide receipts for expenses associated with her attendance at a competition in Spain.  The worker had provided bank statements with details of the expenses which were paid with her debit card.  The club secretary also informed the worker that she owed 75% of the cost of a course that she attended while she was employed.  The full cost of the course was €355.00.

On November 6th, the worker returned the hot water bottle and the electric blanket.  By the end of January 2025, she had still not been paid the money she was owed and she wrote again to the club secretary.  On February 11th, he replied and said that he had discovered that she was employed by another gymnastics club.  He said that this was a breach of the conflict of interest clause in her “employment agreement.”  The company secretary said that he was “seeking legal counsel on the best course of action before proceeding with any final payment.”

At the hearing on May 16th 2025, the worker said that she had still not received her final wages.  She was unaware of a conflict of interest clause in the “Day 5 Statement” of her terms and conditions of employment and the staff handbook that she submitted in her book of documents has no reference to such a clause. 

In the document he sent to the WRC on May 30th 2025, the club secretary explained the reason for the dismissal of the worker:

“She was issued a short service dismissal in August 2024 due to her limited tenure with the club and the frequency and severity of concerns raised during that period.  The decision was communicated via video call, as she was in the United States at the time and not expected to return until September 2024.  In the interest of timeliness and clarity, this method was the most appropriate option available.  We also offered to provide her with a letter of recommendation should she wish to pursue alternative employment.”

“Short Service Dismissal”

The letter issued to the worker on August 21s 2024 which confirms her dismissal begins as follows:

“As per (name of the employer) disciplinary rules and procedures we retain the discretion to take into account your length of service with the club and to vary the procedures accordingly.  As a consequence, therefore, and taking into account your length of service, I have decided that your employment should be terminated due to the requirements of the business and the fact that you are not the right fit for the role.”

In the transcript of the appeal meeting held on October 16th 2024, the head coach opened the meeting by stating that its purpose was to appeal “the short service dismissal” of the worker.

A Google search for the phrase “short service dismissal” led me to the website of the HR consultancy firm, Peninsula, where the term is used to describe the dismissal of an employee who has recently been recruited.  “Short service dismissal” is not a legal concept and, while an employee with less than one year’s service is excluded from the protection of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, an employer is obliged to treat an employee with such short service fairly and in accordance with the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures which is set out in Statutory Instrument 146 of 2000.

Failure to Adhere to Fair Procedures

Most employers are aware of and understand the obligation to treat an employee who is at risk of dismissal in a fair manner.  I have considered the worker’s submission and the documents she provided at the hearing.  I have also considered the submission sent by her former employer two weeks after the hearing.  It is my view that the conduct of this employer was devious, unfair and calculated to take advantage of the fact that the worker is a foreign national and unfamiliar with the working environment in Ireland.  I have reached this conclusion for the following reasons:

Apart from a “Day 5 Statement,” the worker was not issued with a statement of her terms and conditions of employment and the disciplinary procedure was issued to her after she was dismissed.

The worker wasn’t registered with the Revenue Commissioners at the commencement of her employment and tax, PRSI and USC were not deducted on time from her wages.

Her wages were paid consistently late.

When she was recruited, the worker was informed that she would be paid €15.00 per hour.  Her monthly salary of €2,200 for working 35 hours a week results in an hourly rate of €14.50.

The worker was dismissed at a virtual meeting that took place while she was on leave in the US.  She was informed beforehand that the meeting was to “to discuss some important updates within your role at the club,” which, clearly, gives no sense of the true purpose of the meeting.

The worker was not given the option of being accompanied at this meeting.  The club secretary read out a letter of dismissal, leaving her with no opportunity to reply to any issues he raised related to her conduct or performance.

The letter of dismissal of August 21st 2024 states that the worker was dismissed “due to the requirement of the business and the fact that you are not fit for the role.”  At the meeting on October 16th to appeal against her dismissal, the reason was changed and was stated to be about a child safe-guarding issue.  The transcript of the meeting shows that this refers to the fact that the worker gave her phone number to two children who attended a gymnastics camp in July.  This issue was raised by the club secretary at a meeting with the worker at the time.  The worker said that she agreed that she wouldn’t give out her phone number in future and the matter should have ended there.  On July 16th, she went on leave, so there were no other conduct or performance issues that her employer could have been concerned about before she was dismissed on August 21st.

If this issue of the giving of her phone number to two students was so serious as to warrant dismissal, the worker should have been informed about this at the meeting in July.  Evidently, the employer did not consider the matter serious enough at that time, because he didn’t issue even a verbal warning.

It is my view that the reference at the appeal meeting to child protection issues was intended to intimidate the worker and to discourage her from going ahead with her complaint to the WRC.

When she appealed against her dismissal, the club secretary informed the worker that, pending the outcome of the appeal, her final wages would be withheld.  An appeal has no bearing on an employee’s entitlement to their wages and it is my view that this was done to discourage her from proceeding with her appeal.

When she asked for a reference, this was also refused, pending the outcome of the appeal.

Following the appeal, the worker’s wages were withheld because she had taken up a job with another gymnastics club.  The club secretary cited concerns about a conflict of interest and stated that he was “seeking legal counsel” before he could finalise the worker’s wages.  It is my view that this was another attempt to intimidate the worker and to stymie her efforts to get paid.

Almost one year later, in May 2025, the worker had still not been paid the wages due to her.

Conclusion

I accept that, in general, a complaint being considered under the Industrial Relations Act is a less formal matter than a hearing under the Unfair Dismissals Act; however, I am guided by the decision of the Labour Court in the case of Beechside Company Limited, trading as the Park Hotel Kenmare and A Worker[1].  It is clear from this decision that the requirement for fair procedures is not confined to employees who have adequate service to benefit from the protection of the Unfair Dismissals Act, and the Labour Court has consistently determined that employees with short service come within the protection of the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures.

Before she was dismissed, the worker should have been informed about any problem that was leading her managers to conclude that she was unsuitable for the job.  She should have been given an opportunity to address the issues that were causing concern.  If the employer had explained to her what was required to ensure that she remained in the job in the longer term, she may have adapted and reached the standard of performance that was required to make her a better fit for the job.  I am satisfied that no reasonable employer would treat an employee in the manner that this worker was treated and, for these reasons, I find that her dismissal was unfair.

I have concluded that the dismissal of the worker was unfair and not in accordance with proper procedures.  I recommend that the employer pays her wages of €2,361.88, which, in August 2024, the club secretary confirmed was due to her.  I recommend also that the employer pays the worker compensation of €4,500, equivalent to approximately eight weeks’ gross pay.

Failure to use procedures in advance of dismissal