Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

An Employer

Representatives

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 - 00004179

23/04/2026

The Worker was employed as a chef by the Employer which operates a gastro pub.

She started on the 21 October and was dismissed on 18 April 2025 on the basis of her failing probation.

The Worker submits she performed her duties diligently. She was not on notice of any performance issues nor that she was at risk of failing her probation. She was given no opportunity to improve her performance before being dismissed.  She was not given appropriate training.

The 18th of April was her last day of the week on the roster and she was supposed to be off for the next 3 days. At the end of her shift the sous chef asked her to come up to the office and the head chef told her she was being dismissed due to failing probation after complaints from the floor staff which she had been unaware of. She was told the decision was out of the chef’s hands and was made by the managers, who were not in the meeting.

The Worker was paid €16 per hour but worked variable hours. Her minimum working week was 30 hours but she normally worked around 45 hours.

After the Worker was dismissed she could not obtain jobseekers until mid June due to her IRP status needing to be renewed at the end of April, just after her termination.  She was unable to apply for jobs until August as her employment permit expired and had to be renewed.

She is seeking compensation.

The Employer rejects the claim. They submit there were a number of complaints related to food the Worker had prepared and she was subject to retraining but she was unhappy when she received poor feedback. She was in receipt of online training but did not avail of that. Unfortunately the chef has since left the business so can’t provide further information at this point. Feedback was received from the bar manager as well.

They produced a probation review filled out by the location’s manager in relation to the Worker which identified issues and is dated in March 2025. There was no improvement and they made the decision to terminate her employment.

They accept there was an issue with tips being paid regularly despite them coming to the Head Chef on a weekly basis.

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

The Worker submits she was given daily feedback as part of the kitchen team which was a normal part of how the Employer operated. However this would be directed at the wider team, it was not individualised and would generally involve wider feedback about things like communication between the floor and the kitchen. She submits that she was never put on notice of any serious performance issues not ever told that she might be dismissed for failing probation.

While the Employer disagrees and submits she was put through such a process the member of management attending the hearing did not have direct knowledge of these steps and received information second hand from the head chef, who for other reasons may not have been entirely reliable. The only document they produced was a probation review form filled out and signed by the reviewer and not the Worker. The Worker disputes ever having attended or being asked to attend such a meeting. Having regard to all the circumstances I prefer to rely on the Worker’s submissions in determining the basis for my recommendation.

I am mindful of the recommendation of the Labour Court in C&W O'Brien Architects v A Worker, LCR22391, wherein the Court took into account the provisions of the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures (S.I. 146 of 2000) which, in the words of the Court: “emphasises the importance of ensuring that an employee is aware of any disciplinary procedure which is initiated in respect of her and to know any case being made against her and to have a fair opportunity to respond to any such case. The Code also emphasises the importance of the availability of an internal mechanism wherein a sanction which has been imposed can be appealed.”

These restrictions apply even in probation. The steps taken by an employer in the course of a performance related probationary dismissal do not need to be a rigorous or formal as a dismissal for disciplinary reasons. However, as a matter of basic fairness the Worker needs to be told where they are falling short and given a reasonable opportunity to improve, with the knowledge that if they fail to do so they will fail probation and their employment will end. The Employer failed to afford this level of fairness to the Worker. 

While I note that it took the Worker four months to find new work she could not look for work until August due to employment permit issues.  As the Employer points out this was unrelated to them. The Worker had not applied for an extension while with the Employer and as such they would have also had to stand her down if she had stayed.

In all the circumstances I recommend that the Employer pay the Worker limited compensation for unfairly terminating her employment and that the amount of compensation which is fair and reasonable having regard to the circumstances is €2000.