ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference:  ADJ-00058895

Parties:

Complaint:

Date of Adjudication Hearing:  22/06/2026

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Catherine Byrne

Procedure:

1. In accordance with section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, this complaint was assigned to me by the Director General. I conducted a hearing on June 22nd 2026 and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence relevant to the complaint.  The complainant, Mr Ram Shah, represented himself.  Aer Lingus was represented by the company’s legal counsel, Ms Elaine Mettler and by a HR business partner, Ms Melisa Hilliard.
2. While the parties are named in this Decision, from here on, I will refer to Mr Shah as “the complainant” and to Aer Lingus as “the respondent.”

Background:

3. Every year, in anticipation of the busy travel season between April and October, the respondent recruits around 70 people to train as temporary customer service agents for six months. Based in Dublin airport, the job involves checking in passengers, using the company’s booking systems and adhering to regulatory safety and security procedures.
4. New employees recruited for the role of temporary customer service agent must successfully complete a two-week training programme, the Aer Lingus Ground Operations Check-In Course. This is a classroom-based programme with 12 people in each class.  At the end of the training, employees must achieve an overall 80% pass mark in two assessments.  Employees who achieve 80% in their assessments are then offered a fixed-term contract.
5. The respondent recruits for customer service agents through an outsourced company, Temple Recruitment. In February 2025, the vacancies for the role of temporary customer service agent were advertised on the website of Indeed.ie and the complainant applied for a role.  Following an interview, on March 3rd, he received confirmation from a recruitment consultant in Temple Recruitment that he had been successful.  In her email on that date, the recruiter stated:

“We would like to offer you a Fixed Term position until 1st November 2025.  However, you will need to successfully complete your training and you will initially be employed on a training contract for the duration of your training which will be of two weeks’ duration.  Your envisaged training start date is 14th April 2025.”

6. On April 3rd, the chief people officer sent the complainant a four-page letter with the title, “Aer Lingus Customer Service Agent: Pre-Selection Training Course.” I understand that this letter is a statement of the terms and conditions of employment for the two-week training course.  The second paragraph of the letter states,

“I am pleased to advise you that we are now offering you a place as a Trainee Customer Service Agent on our Customer Service Agent: Pre-Selection Training Course which takes place in Dublin Airport (“the Training Course”).  This Training Course is the final stage of our recruitment and selection process and provides applicants with the opportunity to learn the skills required to be a Customer Service Agent in Aer Lingus.”

At paragraph 6, the letter states,

“If you successfully complete your Training Course and attain the required standards, you will be offered further employment with Aer Lingus, subject to the following conditions…”

Paragraph 15 states as follows:

“The Customer Services Training Course is a pre-selection course.  Your position on the Training Course is subject to continuous satisfactory performance, attendance and conduct throughout the Training Course.  If at any stage during the Training Course you are deemed not to be achieving the required standard and/or to meet all the requirements of Aer Lingus Customer Service Agent, you may be released from the Training Course in accordance with the early termination provisions in this contract without liability or further obligation on the part of Aer Lingus.  Those who fail to achieve the required standard on this Training Course will not be offered further employment with Aer Lingus.”

7. The complainant signed this letter on April 8th and commenced on the Training Course on April 14th. On day one of the training, he was issued with a Check-in Training Manual.  The first page of the manual sets out the requirement to achieve an 80% pass mark in the final assessment:
   1. All trainees are required to sit a final assessment and achieve an 80% mark or higher to gain employment.
   2. No re-sits will be made available.
   3. Trainees who do not achieve this grade will not be offered a contract of employment.
   4. Throughout the course, trainers may conduct random quizzes or spot check questions to assess trainees’ progress. These will be for assessment purposes only and will not form any part of the final exams.
8. On April 29th, at the end of the two weeks of training, the complainant sat the assessment, but he didn’t achieve the 80% pass mark and he wasn’t offered a further fixed-term contract. On May 1st, he submitted a formal complaint to the HR department.  He complained that the job had been misrepresented to him because “the key conditions” comprising the hourly rate of pay, the conditional nature of the employment, the high pass mark and the lack of an opportunity to repeat the exam were not disclosed.
9. A member of the recruitment team replied to the complainant on May 7th. The recruiter said that the advertisement for the roles carried on the website of Indeed.ie specifically states that the hourly rate of €16.66 includes a shift allowance.  The shift allowance is not payable during the two-week training course which takes place during the daytime.  The recruiter said that this is brought to the attention of candidates by Temple Recruitment during a post-interview checklist, when the hourly rate of €14.49 plus a shift allowance of €2.17 is highlighted.  The letter-writer noted that all candidates are informed that, if they do not pass the training, they will not be offered a role.  The complainant was not satisfied with the response from the recruitment team, and, on May 9th, he submitted this complaint to the WRC. 

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

10. On the e-complaint form he submitted to the WRC, the complainant said that he was offered a fixed-term contract for six months at an hourly rate of €16.66, inclusive of a shift allowance. He complained that the job offer made no mention of performance-related exams or a minimum pass mark.  He claims that the offer letter refers to a two-week training period, with employment being subject to background checks, references and a medical assessment.  He said that he accepted the job in good faith and he left a job to take up employment with the respondent.
11. On April 4th 2025, the complainant received the offer letter for the training course. He said that, as this was just nine days before the start date of the course and he had resigned from his job, he was effectively under duress when he accepted the terms of the two-week training.
12. The complainant claims that the salary of €16.66 per hour was misrepresented. He was paid €14.50 per hour and was only later informed that the €16.66 included a shift allowance.  He said that he wasn’t given a breakdown between the basic rate and the shift allowance and he claimed that this was misleading and influenced his financial expectations.
13. The complainant claims that it was only on the first day of the training course, on April 14th 2025, that the tutor informed him that he was required to achieve an 80% pass mark in the assessment. He didn’t know that failing the exam would result in his employment being terminated or that it wasn’t possible to repeat the exam.  He said that none of the correspondence issued to him has this information, which he said, was shocking, because the course consisted of memorising commands.
14. The day before the final assessment, the complainant was issued with an Aer Lingus uniform, with the implication, he claims, that he was accepted for the role. His dismissal the following day caused him to feel humiliated and distressed.
15. At the end of the two weeks of training, the complainant said that there was no notice that he was under-performing, no chance to re-sit the test and no opportunity to appeal. He said that he was simply informed that he had failed and that he was no longer required.  He had to return his Aer Lingus ID badge and the tutor told him that the car park attendant would lift the barrier to exit the car park if he explained his situation.
16. Concluding his evidence at the hearing on June 22nd 2026, the complainant said that he left a job to take up the role with the respondent. He has many years of experience in the travel industry and he was hopeful that the fixed-term job as a customer service agent would lead to a career with Aer Lingus.  He said that he was informed on the first day of the training course that candidates were required to achieve an 80% pass mark and that there would be no opportunity to repeat the assessment.  He said that the failure to allow a repeat and the dismissal of a candidate who fails demonstrates that the company has no consideration for the effect that failing has on the individual and their family.  He argued that this treatment is completely unfair.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

17. In a submission to address the complainant’s claims, Ms Mettler said that the complainant was offered a specified purpose contract to complete a mandatory training course for the role of customer service agent. During the recruitment process, he was informed that, to continue in employment, he was required to successfully complete the training.
18. Ms Mettler said that the training course is mandatory and the 80% mark in the assessment must be attained by all the trainees. The complainant did not achieve the 80% mark and, for this reason, he wasn’t offered employment beyond the initial training course.
19. The complainant’s specified purpose contract ended when the purpose was satisfied, which was the completion of the training course. There was no obligation on the respondent to offer him further employment.
20. In line with his contractual terms, the complainant was paid for the duration of the training course. Ms Mettler said that, because the training programme was scheduled during normal office hours, no shift allowance applied and the rate of €14.49 was the relevant hourly rate.
21. At the hearing, Ms Mettler said that Aer Lingus invests heavily in the recruitment and training of candidates for the role of customer service agent and, during the two weeks of training, the company’s objective is to support candidates to pass the assessment. The training is progressive, with the early days focussing on an introduction to the role, moving on to more challenging elements such as memorising codes, so that the candidates are ready for the assessment.  She said that candidates are expected to prepare for the assessment by studying in their own time.  Most of the candidates pass the assessment, but Ms Mettler said that occasionally, a candidate fails to reach the pass mark.  Due to the regulatory nature of the training, the company’s policy is not to allow a repeat assessment.  
22. Ms Mettler went through the process by which the complainant arrived at the commencement of the training course on April 14th. She said that the recruiter from Temple Recruitment goes through a checklist at the end of the interview and informs the candidates that they are employed initially on a two-week training course, which must be passed successfully before they are offered the remainder of the six-month contract.  Ms Mettler then referred to the email of March 3rd 2025 from the recruiter in Temple Recruitment, in which she informed the complainant that he “will need to successfully complete your training and you will initially be employed on a training contract for the duration of your training which will be of two weeks’ duration.”  In the next formal communication, the offer letter of April 3rd, the complainant was again informed that he would be offered employment if he successfully completed the training course.  Finally, Ms Mettler referred to the Check-In Training Manual, which clearly states that candidates must achieve an 80% pass mark in the assessment.
23. On the issue of the uniform, and the complainant’s feeling of humiliation when he was issued with a uniform that he never got to wear, Ms Hilliard said that it is necessary to order uniforms for the candidates in the expectation that they will be ready to “walk the floor” with a mentor in the airport as soon as the assessment is complete.
24. Ms Mettler said that the company expected the complainant to come through the course successfully and hoped that he would come through. She said that the company is apologetic about the sense of humiliation and disappointment felt by the complainant.  She disagreed with his assertion that the course is too complex, and she said that the job is an important, front-facing customer role and that the job-holders are required to be trained and assessed as competent.  Ms Mettler said that it is open to the complainant to apply when the roles are advertised again, and to try to get through the assessment on a second attempt.

Findings and Conclusions:

25. This is a complaint under the Protection of Employees (Fixed-term Work) Act 2003 (“the Fixed-term Work Act.”) Section 6 of that Act sets out the obligation on employers to treat fixed-term workers no less favourably compared to a permanent employee:

(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (5), a fixed-term employee shall not, in respect of his or her conditions of employment, be treated in a less favourable manner than a comparable permanent employee.

(2) If treating a fixed-term employee, in respect of a particular condition of employment, in a less favourable manner than a comparable permanent employee can be justified on objective grounds then that employee may, notwithstanding subsection (1), be so treated.

(3) A period of service qualification relating to a particular condition of employment shall be the same for a fixed-term employee as for a comparable permanent employee except where a different length of service qualification is justified on objective grounds.

(4) For the avoidance of doubt, the reference in this section to a comparable permanent employee is a reference to such an employee either of the opposite sex to the fixed-term employee concerned or of the same sex as him or her.

(5) Subsection (1) shall, in so far, but only in so far, as it relates to any pension scheme or arrangement, not apply to a fixed-term employee whose normal hours of work constitute less than 20 per cent of the normal hours of work of a comparable permanent employee.

(6) The extent to which any condition of employment referred to in subsection (7) is provided to a fixed-term employee for the purpose of complying with subsection (1) shall be related to the proportion which the normal hours of work of that employee bears to the normal hours of work of the comparable permanent employee concerned.

(7) The condition of employment mentioned in subsection (6) is a condition of employment the amount of benefit of which (in case the condition is of a monetary nature) or the scope of the benefit of which (in any other case) is dependent on the number of hours worked by an employee.

(8) For the avoidance of doubt, neither this section nor any other provision of this Act affects the operation of Part III of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997.

26. The complainant’s case is that he was treated unfairly because, when he accepted the role of temporary customer service agent, he wasn’t informed that he had to achieve a pass mark of 80% in the assessment. He claims that the failure to allow a candidate to repeat the assessment is also unfair, because the subject matter is complex.  He spoke also about the humiliation he felt at being given a uniform for the job, only to have to hand it back.  He claims that advertising the job at €16.66 per hour is misleading, because the hourly rate for the time spent on the training programme is €14.49.  Finally, he claims that the company has no consideration for the emotional distress on the individual and on their family, caused by failing the assessment and then being out of a job
27. It’s not difficult to appreciate the distress felt by the complainant at not meeting the 80% pass mark and the impact on him and his family of not continuing in the role of temporary customer service agent. The job is an attractive entry point into a prestigious company, and I’m sure that for many employees who start off in the temporary summer position, they move on to have fulfilling careers in Aer Lingus.  While I understand the complainant’s grievance, this is not a complaint about less favourable treatment of fixed-term workers.  The company’s position is that all customer service agents, whether they are recruited on a permanent or fixed-term basis, must achieve an overall 80% mark at the end of the mandatory assessment programme.  While the complainant was hired as a fixed-term worker, he didn’t point to any condition or term of his employment that was less favourable than the terms and conditions of a permanent employee.  For this reason, as I explained to him at the hearing, I must find that his complaint under the Act cannot succeed.
28. Having reached this conclusion, I wish to make some comments about the substance of the complainant’s case. I accept that, on March 3rd 2025, he was informed in writing by the recruitment consultant in Temple Recruitment that he would have to successfully complete two weeks’ training before moving on to the six-month role.  On April 3rd, in the letter from the chief people officer, he was informed that, if he successfully completed the training course, he would be offered further employment.  It was only after he accepted the offer, on the first day of the training, that he was informed by the tutor, and in writing in the training manual, that the pass mark was 80%.  While I accept that he had two weeks to absorb this challenge, he had already left his job at that point.  A more transparent approach would be for candidates to be informed by Temple Recruitment in the confirmation of job offer email, and in the offer letter itself, that the pass mark is 80% and that repeats are not permitted.  This is the information provided in the training manual and, if a candidate was armed with these details before they accepted the job, they could measure the risk of failing against their own assessment of their abilities and determine if the risk is worth taking.
29. I find that there was no unfairness in the advertisement of the role at an hourly rate of €16.66 inclusive of the shift allowance because most people would understand that a training course takes place during the daytime and that a shift rate doesn’t apply.
30. The complainant’s experience of being issued with a uniform the day before he was told that he failed the assessment is something that I think could be managed differently. An Aer Lingus uniform is worn with pride by employees and, and for new recruits and their families, the possession of a uniform must cause a sense of achievement and excitement.  From an operational perspective, it must be possible to measure for and procure the uniform and to issue it to recruits who have successfully passed the assessment after the unsuccessful candidates have left.
31. These remarks are not material to my finding that the complaint under the Fixed-term Work Act does not succeed; however, some consideration of the issues raised by the complainant may improve the recruitment experience for other applicants.

Decision:

32. Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
33. I decide that this complaint is not well founded.

Dated:   10-07-26

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Catherine Byrne

Key Words:

Recruitment, training course, pass mark, hourly rate, shift allowance