Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Deli Manager

A Food Business

Representatives

 Appeared In Person

No Appearance by or on behalf of the Employer 

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Section 13, Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR-SC-00004218

May 1, 2025,

On May 1, 2025, the Worker submitted a Dispute under the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

She outlined that she had been unfairly dismissed on grounds of “unsuccessful probation “but did not have 12-month service. The worker went on to outline the work practices at the business which caused her to make her claim to the WRC.

The Employer operates a food business and has not engaged in the dispute.

On 11 June 2025, the WRC notified the worker that the employer had not responded to notification of claim.

“In the circumstances, the Respondent is deemed to have consented to an investigation by an Adjudicator under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969and the dispute now will proceed to be considered on that basis accordingly “ 

Both Parties were invited to hearing set for 16 March 2026 at 12 noon.

On 25 February 2026, I wrote to both parties seeking completion of a written chronological submission to assist in my investigation. I sought employment related documents such as a contract, grievance procedure, confirmation of efforts made to resolve the dispute locally and a table of loss and mitigation, incorporating details of any new work found.

The worker engaged with the request. The employer did not.

Prior to hearing, the worker sought assistance of a Hungarian Interpreter, and this was provided.

The Worker attended the hearing with a support person.

The Employer did not make an appearance at hearing or communicate any reason for their nonattendance.

At the conclusion of the hearing, I sought the workers retained documents on her probation at the business. These followed on 18 March 2026.

The worker is a Hungarian national who commenced work as a Delicatessen Manager on 29 October 2024. She worked a 42.50 hour week in return for a gross pay of €680.00.

The worker outlined that her employment was unfairly ended on 25 April 2025. Prior to this, she had been subjected to a protracted line of unfair treatment in the workplace.

In her chronological submission prehearing, the worker outlined that she received the Manager job offer from the General Manager on 15 October 2024. She completed a trial day before commencing proper on 29 October 2025. She replaced a previous manager who was on sick leave and found that she arrived at a disorganised workplace.

There were no details on training, orientation or logistics and she was compelled to immediately start work on an inventory compilation. She found this confusing as she had worked in other franchises as a supervisor, but this area was different. This was her first role as Manager.

The contract issued on 25 November 2025.

The Worker, by her own admission struggled in her role, which she outlined was unsupported and involved malfunctions in necessary equipment. There were two full time and three part time staff.

Staff were unhappy.

A Supervisor was appointed in January 2025

She stated:

“They always put me under pressure from the first day. Only sometimes I could take 30-minute break or I ahd no break because shortages of staff members. Sometimes only two staff worked 6 am to 7 pm. That means I was alone from 6 to 10 or 11, doing everything, including taking delivery three times a week, baking, preparing the food, administration “

The Worker outlined that she had weekly meetings with management at the business.

She was surprised to be asked to back date training. She was uncomfortable with that and refused.

The Managers commented on her appearance and indicated that customers had complained but were unable to substantiate this. The Worker was deeply unhappy at work and felt intimidated.

On 26 March 2025, the management ran a trial customer interaction involving a counterfeit note. This involved a staff member posing as a customer.

The worker was called to the general managers office and directed to replace the counterfeit note and cancel the transaction. The Worker was bewildered by this as it coincided with her own probation meeting.

The Management indicated that they believed staff were giving food to customers.

The Worker outlined that she was fired on 17 April 2025. Two other staff members were also terminated.

She outlined that earlier meetings on probation were replaced by a direct engagement with human resources Ms E on that day. She was handed a letter of dismissal with a weeks’ notice.

The worker contended that she was treated unfairly as she was replaced in the immediate aftermath of her leaving by a colleague from a different part of the same business.

Her dismissal placed her in financial hardship, and she subsisted on job seekers benefit 8 May 2025 to 23 September 2025. She found new work in September 2025.

At hearing, the Worker presented as visibly shaken by her experience at the business. She confirmed that her start date was supposed to have the ex-manager present and available to her, but nobody was there. She was floored by being expected to execute an inventory on her first day.

My queries focussed on the Probation period. The worker confirmed that she had participated in a probation process, from which she had retained notes. I requested an opportunity to review these notes.

I also reviewed if the worker understood the company dispute.

The worker outlined that she had received a contract and handbook in the English language.

She recounted details of the five-month probation meeting which occurred on March 27, 2025. This meeting lasted 10 minutes and she understood her performance was evaluated as poor “again “as the expected income generation had not been realised.

The meeting concluded with her resuming duty.

On 17 April 2025, the worker was requested to meet an external human resource manager, Ms E, who informed her that while she was a good worker, she did not meet the requirement for a manager .m She was given one weeks’ notice. There was no facility for appeal.

When requested to outline the reasons for her claim before the WRC, the worker reflected that she had been unfairly treated in this workplace. Vasic work conditions were not met. She was shocked at the low level of support.

She did not accept that she should lose her job and sought compensation for the distress caused to her.

I have studied both probation reports in the workers possession which correspond to month 3 and 5 of her employment.

These documents were received post hearing and were shared with the Employer, who once more did not file a response.

The Employer operates a food business.

The Employer has neither objected to the suggested investigation in this case nor filed any kind of defence of the claims made.

The Employer did not attend the hearing in this case and has not forwarded any explanation for this stark lack of engagement.

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

This is a case where the worker has carried an elevated level of disappointment and distress with her now former employer for the best part of a year and a half of her life. She described it as her worst ever employment experience.

It would have helped me enormously to have met with the Employer as they clearly, from the documentation provided by the worker carried a different opinion to the worker.

They are entitled to hold that viewpoint, however, to resolve a dispute, an Adjudicator such as I needs to hear from both participants.

I can see that the Employer was notified of hearing at the Food Business location.

 I found their absence from the case and hearing to be unreasonable, given that they held a veto to the investigation and did not exercise it.

I press on.

This case came to hearing framed as a statutory unfair dismissal claim as provided for in Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 as amended. However, the worker did not have the prerequisite service of 1 year to ground such a claim. Therefore, the claim came to the WRC under the Industrial Relations Act, where I am permitted look at the circumstances of the case through the lenses of was it fair and was it reasonable?

It is of note that that the contract of employment had an ambiguous insertion at the end of page 1.

“ …. This is a permanent employment contract. It is agreed that he provisions of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977-2007 will apply to this contract in the event of termination. “

It did not elaborate on the interface between probation and termination within the first year of employment.

I appreciate that any Recommendation I make is presented to the parties as a voluntary option.

On listening and considering the workers narrative, I could see that she had an early trauma at the business when she was literally expected to hit the ground running and she simply did not recover.

The Employer operates a multi-facetted business and management of one entity within that complex setting proved daunting for the worker. There was an unfortunate delay before the contract issued.

I am satisfied that the employer had adequate grievance and disciplinary procedures within their company handbook. These remained unutilised by the worker. I began to probe this omission.

I am satisfied that the worker should have been given a contract and handbook in the Hungarian language. I found the worker proficient in the English language; however, she was visibly reliant on the interpreter for assistance with specialised language of employment procedures.

This limited her capacity to troubleshoot in her own case.

As I result, I find that I cannot bind her to having exhausted these procedures prior to referral to the WRC.

I understand that the worker was deeply unhappy in her employment. I needed to see the progression of probation as this serves as a valuable window for evaluation of the circumstances of the case.

I found two very well-structured Probation Reports which covered months 3 and 5 of the workers employment.

I could see clearly that the Employer had a stated difficulty with the workers performance as a manager. On both reports the employer is recorded as planning a further review of performance in the shape of an action plan. Feb 4 and March 27, 2025.

“Should be reviewed further “

Yet some 20 days later, I could not discern just how that consequent review was conducted prior to a decision to dismiss on 17 April 2025.

There was a clear option on the performance review to either extend probation or terminate employment. The document exhibited by the worker was fixed at “should be further reviewed “and not those other options.

The review was ear marked for expansion to include areas for improvement, goals, guidance, time, and training.

“We will set specific goals with human resources aimed at achieving satisfactory performance and progress will be reviewed “

I could not establish that the worker contributed to the narrative on this form.

The employer took a short cut and ignored their own probationary report of 27 March 2025 when they terminated the workers employment on 17 April 2025, on one weeks’ notice.

The termination was communicated by human resources and not by the management team who had participated in the performance review meetings.

I understand that any employer has the right to terminate an employee whom they deem does not suit the business during probation. After all, it is a period of bi lateral trial and either party can depart from the trial. However, the departure must be underwritten by fair procedures and reasonableness.

I have found merit in this dispute.

Firstly, I have identified that the worker expressed an elevated level of fear and unrest in her employment. She ought to have challenged this in real time through probation reviews or the company grievance procedure. I have already remarked on the shortcomings in the employment documentation on the absence of Hungarian translation.

Secondly, without an identifiable reason, the employer departed from their own declaration of seeking a pathway for improvement with the worker and HR on 27 March 2025. I have not found a “last straw “incident which prompted a termination of employment when this was not flagged on month 5 of termination. Crucially, the opportunity to extend probation was not considered.

Instead, the worker received a letter which confirmed an unsuccessful probation from Ms E who had not managed the probation reviews.

I accept the Employer replaced the worker by an on-site member of staff virtually immediately.

I heard the worker when she described the affect the dismissal had on her well being until she found some new work almost 5 months later. For that reason, I once more state that I would have liked the employer to be present to respond to this.

The Worker has moved on but now needs closure on this unhappy period.

Dismissal during probation.