Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Transport Planner

A public transport company

Representatives

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act

CA-00073059-003

2 July 2025

The worker commenced employment with the employer, a public transport provider, on 22 July 2025 on a three-year fixed term contract, with a six-month probation period. His employment ended on 28 March 2025 according to the worker and on 3 January 2025 according to the employer.

The worker submits that he was unfairly dismissed before his six-month probation period had ended without recourse to fair procedures. 

The worker submits that on 18 December 2024 he received a meeting invite in from his line manager for the next day for a “Probation Update”. No other details were set out. At the meeting he was advised that his work was good but that due to a couple of other things they had decided not to retain him past 21 January 2025.

On 3 January 2025 the worker was contacted by phone by his employer and told that he was not required to work his probation period.  He was then paid his contractual 12 weeks PILON, without his agreement.

The worker suggests that as case law has shown that notice periods are accounted for to ascertain if an employee has more than 1 years’ service that the allowance of 12 weeks’ notice period results in him passing his probation on 31October 2024 or 21 January 2024 as it was applied from 3 January 2025.

The worker stated that there was no fair process, no disciplinary issue; he was simply walked into a room and was fired. He had not been put on notice and there was no probation plan in place.

The worker submits that his dismissal was unfair and as he works in a niche field his future earnings potential has been negatively affected by this dismissal. Since his dismissal he has applied for several jobs but has been unsuccessful in obtaining employment.

The employer submits that whereas there were no issues in relation to the worker’s capability to perform the duties of his role there were a number of concerns raised in relation to his general attitude and demeanour.  The employer expanded on a some of these issues.

The worker was called to a meeting on 4 November 2024 at which his behaviour was deemed to be less than satisfactory. On foot of this he was asked to attend another meeting on 12 November 2024 to discuss his behaviour at the November 4th meeting. Other issues were also discussed relating to the worker’s behaviour and concerns arising from same.

Despite this concerns being raised with the worker, there was no noticeable behaviour in his attitude. It was as a result of these concerns and because there was no noticeable change in attitude that the management team concluded that the worker was not a good fit for the organisation. Therefore, the employer decided to terminate his contract within his probationary period.

The worker was informed at a meeting on 19 December 2024 and advised that his employment would not be continuing beyond his probationary period due to there having been no improvement in his attitude since the meeting of 12 November 2024.  The worker did not dispute this assertion. 

The employer asserts that they were fully entitled to pay the worker in lieu of notice, as per his contract.

The employer submits that make clear that whilst there were some concerns in relation to the worker’s cultural fit within the organisation, his termination was not disciplinary in nature.

The employer asserts that the worker has six-weeks to reflect and take corrective actions but he did not do so, nor did he reach out to his manager for support as had been offered to him.

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

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

The broader facts of this case were not disputed by the parties. 

The worker was dismissed because of his attitude, not because of the quality of his work or his ability to do his work. He was dismissed because of concerns relating to his attitude and demeanour.  

The worker put forward that he was unfairly dismissed without having been given proper notice that his attitude/general demeanour was of such concern that it could lead to his dismissal. I will consider the matter from that perception.

A number of questions arise which when answered may assist in deciding on the fairness or otherwise of his dismissal:

1.      Was the worker given due warning of the importance of addressing management’s concern, i.e. was he told if he did not improve in these areas, he could face dismissal?

 It seems he was not warned that this could be an outcome.

2.      Was the worker given a clear plan to address management’s concerns?

It seems he was not given a clear plan indicating exactly what was needed to show that he was reaching the required standards.

3.      Was the worker allowed appeal the decision to dismiss him.

He was not given an opportunity to appeal the decision that he be dismissed.

At a minimum an employer must alert an employee to any issue and inform him/her of the consequence of termination of employment if the required improvement is not achieved. It behoves all employers to follow path even in instances where the worker is on a fixed-term contract.

In this case the worker was informed of what were perceived to be areas that needed improvement, but it was only raised with him on one occasion at the meeting of 12 November 2024.

Notwithstanding the lack of notice given to him and despite the possible consequences not being made clear to him, the worker was in a senior management position and should have taken due cognisance of the concerns outlined to him at the meeting of 12 November 2024. He did not do so.

Taking all the above into account I believe a monetary award is justified.