Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Representatives

Nicola Murphy

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

IR - SC - 00003173

23/09/2024

The Worker was on probation with the Gym from 1st August until 9th September 2024.

The Worker was employed by another Gym as an instructor. The Gym closed and she moved twelve clients to the Respondents gym. She was told the position would be part-time but it might increase to full-time hours.

From 15th July 2024 she trialled classes at the Gym for over three weeks. She worked full-time for the gym in July and August. She did not receive negative feedback from members or coaches. In mid-August, she was told to behave like a client in the classes. She had attended a class and changed the music from the instructors music, and refused to do more reps of an exercise. She acted childishly and regretted it afterwards. She showed the coach she regretted her behaviour.

A review was arranged with the owner on 2nd September 2024. The owner told her he was dissatisfied with her work. He said she was using colourful language, not providing individualised coaching, referred to the incident with the other coach, and she was making negative comments about the exercises and the programme. The Worker was surprised as she was not aware of any issue.

The following week, the Worker improved her performance and received good feedback from clients and the manager. The Worker met with the owner on 9th September 2024 which she thought was a casual meeting. She was not advised she could bring a colleague or representative. The owner said the Workers coaching was not individualised enough and she was still shouting in classes. He did not have an opportunity to speak to the manager.

She was given a letter stating she failed her probation and was asked to return her keys.

The Worker was employed by at another gym, whose owner was known to Employer. The gym facility was closing. He told the owner the Worker would be looking for work, should they be in need of hiring an additional Fitness Instructor.

The Worker was employed for just five weeks as unfortunately her conduct and professionalism did not meet the standard required. She was dismissed during the probation period.

The Employers gym operates appointment only personal training and classes conducted by a fitness instructor. The professionalism of these fitness instructors is essential to maintain client satisfaction and health and safety standards. The Worker commenced employment on 1 August 2024 when an extensive training and onboarding period was provided. However, it quickly became apparent that both staff and gym members were not happy working with or being coached by the Worker. The Worker did not appear to be taking on board or implementing any of the training and feedback provided by the Employer.

The first month review was arranged to take place on 2 September 2024. The Employer received a number of complaints about the Worker. The complaints were about lack of attention to members, failing to coach members, supervising rather than guidance, spending a lot of time on her phone, very inconsistent when it came to demonstrating exercises, criticising the programme, telling members to ignore what they were told, and say other staff were wrong in front of members. The Worker was asked in weekly meetings to stop doing this, but continued. She often showed a lack of respect to the rest of the team by interrupting their sessions, intentionally making noise or behaving childishly. The Employer had quite a few complaints about her 'colourful language', and Health & Safety.

The owner and the Business manager met with to the Worker about these issues on 2 September 2024. The Employer felt the Worker accepted her behaviour, and explained that her previous job had a lack of standards, feedback and discipline. The Worker became upset, she advised she had personal difficulties and experienced behavioural issues. She admitted incidents with other staff and advised that she had intentionally cancelled some of her training as she was avoiding staff due to embarrassment over her behaviour.

The owner advised that while this meeting was a one month feedback meeting, they would need time to consider whether she would be able to change these traits and pass her probation period. They would give her one week while they considered it, and she should work on the feedback. It was made clear that her job was at risk.

On 6 September 2024, the manager observed a session the Worker conducted. She didn’t see much improvement in the coaching, but she didn’t use bad language. The owner arranged a meeting with the Worker for 10 September where she was advised she had failed her probation period.

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

The Worker was employed on probation for a period of five weeks by the Employer. She moved from a nearby gym with some clients. She received training and was given direction. She provided a client list to the Gym on 17th July 2025.There was an incident with another coach which was raised with the Worker. The Worker said she did not receive any negative feedback until her first review meeting after one month, other than the incident. The Worker was not provided with an employment contract containing a probationary policy. Performance management is dealt with under the Employer’s disciplinary policy which the Worker denied receiving.

The Employer said the gyms are all full and the client list was not an issue in the Workers move to the gym. He said there were complaints about her from staff and members, and the classes which the Worker was teaching were unpopular. He said she was on her phone and was not paying enough attention. She was criticising the programme. The Worker was given guidance in relation to areas to improve at weekly meetings. This was not in the form of negative feedback. However, the Worker did not rectify the issues.

The Worker was not aware of complaints by members. The Worker said she took on board the issues raised at the meeting on 1st September 2024 and owned up to her colourful language. She accepted there had been issues with other staff and accepted the feedback from members. She said she addressed the issues the following week. She said she had some personal issues, but any behavioural issues were when she was a young child not an adult. However, the owner disagreed. He said she was not giving more attention to detail and health and safety, she was still shouting a lot whereas she should be conducting the classes in a conversational tone. The Business Manager observed her session.

The Worker did not agree that she received constructive feedback weekly. She said as a young fitness instruction she would never have signed over her client list if she did not think she was continuing long-term. She said the Business Manager told her she improved.

During a probationary period, it is important that an Employer explains exactly what is expected, the employee receives clear feedback on any areas of weakness, and guidance on what actions to take to improve performance to reach the standard required. The Worker must also be informed of the consequence of failing to achieve the required standard. The Worker says she was not aware of the concerns with her performance and how this might impact her until four weeks passed, despite various complaints. She was given one further week to improve, however this was not sufficient time for her and the Respondent to address the issues raised to their satisfaction. I am mindful that there was no contract of employment given to the Worker and she does not agree the procedures and policies were provided to her. There is no formal record of the meeting or concerns with her performance set out, or warning that her performance was below standard in writing and the implications of this. The Worker was a young fitness instructor and did not realise that she was at risk of dismissal. This does not comply with Statutory Instrument SI 146 of 2000 Industrial Relations Act 1990 (Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures) (Declaration) Order 2000.

In the circumstances, I recommend compensation of four weeks of 2,000 euro be paid to the Worker by the Employer.