Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Junior Quantity Surveyor

Construction Company

Representatives

Self-Represented

Self-Represented

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Dispute seeking Adjudication under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969

IR - SC - 00004035

29/03/2025

On 29th March 2025, the Worker referred the present dispute to the Commission. Herein, he alleged that his employer unfairly dismissed him without recourse to any form of procedure and in contravention his right to a fair hearing. By response, the Employer submitted that the Worker was dismissed in accordance with their probationary policy, and that no unfairness arose in relation to the adoption of the same  

Following the Employer’s positive election to engage in the dispute, the matter proceeded to hearing. Said hearing was convened for, and finalised on, 24th November 2025. This hearing was held in person at the Commission’s Sligo offices.  

Both parties issued submissions in advance of the hearing. Said submissions were expanded upon and contested in the course of the hearing.

No issues as to my jurisdiction to hear the disputes were raised at any stage of the proceedings.

By way of submission, the Worker stated that he commenced employment with the Employer on 10th November 2024. The Worker occupied the role of a junior quantity surveyor and was engaged upon what he believed to constitute a learning contract with the Employer. The Worker asserted that he performed his duties to a high standard and received no negative feedback from the Employer during the course of his tenure. Furthermore, the Worker stated that he was not subject to any disciplinary proceedings regarding his performance.

Towards the conclusion of the working day on Friday 28th March 2025, the Worker was summoned to the office of the Commercial Director of the Employer. The Worker stated that he received no prior notification regarding the purpose of this meeting or the matters which were to be discussed. During this meeting, the Commercial Director informed the Worker that he was “finished” with the company on that day and instructed him to collect his belongings and depart. When the Worker requested a reason for his dismissal, the Commercial Director refused to provide any justification, stating instead that a final decision had been reached. The Worker was required to leave the premises immediately without further discussion. The Worker again sought clarity as he had received no previous warnings, however the Commercial Director remained unresponsive and merely confirmed that the employment was terminated.

BY submission, the Worker stated that the Employer failed to engage in any formal procedure regarding the dismissal. He maintained that he was summarily dismissed without the provision of any reasoning. In those circumstances, the Worker remained unaware of the grounds for his dismissal and stated that the process was conducted in clear and unequivocal breach of his right to fair procedures.

The Employer accepted that the Worker commenced employment as a junior quantity surveyor on 10th November 2024. It was stated that, in common with all new hires, the Worker was subject to a six-month probationary period, which was provided for in a contract of employment duly executed by the parties.

The Employer stated that, throughout the period of employment, the Worker was provided with routine guidance regarding the performance standards required for the junior quantity surveyor role. It was submitted that, on several occasions, the Worker failed to meet the minimum role competencies, with issues such as communication, the meeting of deadlines, and attendance and punctuality being raised during the course of his employment.

In this regard, the Employer submitted that the probationary policy provided for in the contract of employment permitted the termination of the Worker for unsuitability, subject to statutory notice, which was provided. In late March, following a careful consideration and review of the performance of the Worker, a decision was reached by the Employer that he was not suitable for the position.

The Worker was informed of this outcome by the Commercial Director on 28th March 2025, during which time the Worker was provided with a week's salary in lieu of notice. The Employer stated that the Worker queried his termination during the meeting and it was accepted that the Commercial Director did not occur specific reasons. However, it was repeated on a number of occasions that this was the decision of the Employer and that the decision was final, in accordance with the probationary policy. The Employer submitted that the Worker was not dismissed for his conduct or any specific cause; rather, the Employer submitted that the decision was made on the basis of overall suitability for the role. No allegations were put to the Worker; instead, due to a combination of performance issues, the Employer decided not to continue with his employment. In this regard, the Employer stated that the dismissal of the Worker in accordance with the probationary clause was not unfair and requested that a recommendation not issue in his favour.

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

In the present dispute, the Worker has alleged that he was dismissed in contravention of his natural and contractual rights. In particular, he submitted that he was summarily dismissed during a meeting with the Employer, without any form of process being followed. By response, the Employer placed reliance on the fact that the Worker was within his probationary period, and submitted that as such, they were entitled to dismiss the Worker once he formed the viewed that he was not performing to the standard required.

Regarding the dismissal of the Worker, it is apparent that the Employer followed no form of formal or informal procedure prior to giving effect to the same. From a purely practical perspective, it is apparent that the Worker had no opportunity to dispute the allegations of poor performance raised by the Employer, did not have an opportunity to present his case regarding his ongoing employment and was provided with no right of appeal in relation to the same. While much of the hearing of the matter was concerned with the Employer seeking to establish that the Worker was informed of his alleged non-performance in the course of his employment, a sharp distinction may be drawn between the everyday instruction of a new employee in relation to such matters and a consideration of same that serve to place the Worker’s ongoing employment at risk.

By submission, the Employer stated that the relevant probationary clause permitted them to simply dismiss the Worker once they formed the view that he was not performing to an adequate standard. However, it is not the case that such contractual clauses allow an employer an unfettered right to unilaterally dismiss an employee in the absence of some form of fair procedure. 

In the matter of Beechside Company Limited t/a Park Hotel Kenmare -v- A Worker LCR21798 the Labour Court held that,

“Where an employee is considered unsuitable for permanent employment, the Court accepts that an employer has the right, during a probationary period, to decide not to retain that employee in employment.  However, the Court takes the view that this can only be carried out where the employer adheres strictly to fair procedures.”

Likewise, in the matter of Hamilton Insurance DAC v A Worker LCR22710, the Court stated that,

“It is the view of the Court that whenever a worker, including a worker who is on probation, is at the risk of his or her job, it is incumbent on the employer to make the worker aware of the situation and of the reasons.  In addition, where the issue arises from the conduct or performance of the worker, he or she should be afforded an opportunity to address the decision maker in his or her defence.”

It should be noted that such a position does serve to render the terms of a probationary clause moot and entirely inoperative. During such probationary periods, the process regarding such dismissals may be truncated and the standard of non-performance or misconduct resulting in dismissal may be much lower. Nonetheless, it is apparent that some form of process must be followed prior to effecting such dismissals and some form of non-performance or misconduct must be put to the relevant Worker.

Having considered the totality of the factual matrix presented by the parties, I find that the Employer has not established such non-performance on the part of the Worker. In such circumstances, I find in favour of the Worker in relation to the dispute as referred.

Probationary Dismissal, Fair Procedures