Worker

Employer

Parties

Worker

Employer

Representatives

Self-Represented

Hugh Hegarty of Peninsula Business Services Ireland

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Industrial Relations Act,1969

IR -SC-00004640

02/07/2025

The Dispute concerns the ending of employment of a Senior Recruitment Consultant by a Recruitment Company.

The employment began on the 19th May 2025 and ended on the 27th June 2025.  The rate of pay was stated by the Worker to have been €3,606 per month for a 30 hour week.

The Worker was Self-Represented. A written submission was provided and supported by extensive Oral Testimony. In essence her case was that she had been recruited as a Senior Recruitment Consultant - she had extensive prior Industry Experience in the type of work involved. It was a “Start Up” Company that the Worker felt could be developed into an exciting new opportunity.

Her interactions with the new MD (save for day one)  were very largely by means of electronic communications /MS Teams etc. There was very little induction or familiarisation offered. The MD adopted a very “controlling” approach and the Worker found it difficult to develop the role as she, with her prior experience , saw fit. Face to Face interactions as opposed to MS Teams, with the MD, were almost impossible.

Difficulties quickly arose over business issues such as direct contacts with potential clients and formats of Templates /Terms of Business etc . The manner and format of establishing a Data Base of potential clients/customers also became an issue- the Worker felt that she had been effectively demoted to the status of a Data Entry Clerk as opposed to a Senior Consultant.

On the 26th June 2025 she was called via MS Teams to a virtual Teams Probationary meeting. She was dismissed by letter the following day - the 27th June 2025.

The entire process was completely arbitrary . She had been recruited as a Senior professional but had been treated as little more than a Junior Clerk. The Employer simply did not know how to manage an experienced Professional.

 The allegations made against her on the 26th June Probationary meeting were absolutely without any foundation.

The Employer was represented by Mr H Hegarty of Peninsula Business Services. A written submission was provided which was supported by a detailed Oral Testimony.

In essence the Employer position was that the relationship between the Parties had not developed productively. Issues had arisen that the Employer felt were anathema to the role. These were a lack of attention to basic details, failure to follow clear instructions and use of wrong IT Templates.

The Probation meeting of the 26th June 2025 had been properly conducted and as set out in the Workers Contact .  Termination was unfortunate but was in the best long term interest of both Parties. Detailed minutes from the Probation meeting were presented in evidence.

Mr Hegarty concluded by a clear reference to the Court of Appeal case of Donal O’Donovan v Over-C Technology Ltd [2021] IECA 37 where it was made clear by Ms Justice  Costello that dismissal during a probationary period for basic performance issues was lawful.

The Employment relationship had not worked out and a probationary dismissal was fair.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions both Oral and Written presented to me by the parties.  The Minutes of the Probation Meeting were noted with interest.

The major legal highlight of the of Donal O’Donovan v Over-C Technology Ltd [2021] IECA 37 was noted. It is a judgement that is now accepted as a Legal highlight in Probation dismissal cases.

The exchanges noted in the Probation minutes and the oral testimony of the Parties at the Hearing were considered carefully by the Adjudication Officer.

The case is taken under the Industrial Relations Act,1969 which allows the Adjudicator considerable flexibility in the making of a Recommendation.

It was the view of the Adjudicator, based on many years HR/IR Industry experience, that the case was possibly one of unrealistic expectations of both sides. The Worker had been excited by what she felt was a great opportunity for a seasoned professional in a Start Up – the Employer was setting up a Business with all the constraints that this involved. There was no surprise that the relationship could get à bit fraught.

 A useful analogy might be a Sports Team dispute between a recently recruited very experienced  star Player and the new manager of the Team.  The challenge for both sides is managing the relationship.

While a Recommendation has to take into account the legal position from Donal O’Donovan v Over-C Technology Ltd [2021] IECA 37 the Industrial Relations Act,1969 allows the Adjudicator some flexibility.

It would be unfair to Recommend totally in favour of either side here.

The Recommendation will have to reflect this view.

Probationary Dismissal