Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Store Manager

A Retailer

Representatives

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Industrial Relations Acts

IR-SC-00005283

06/10/2025

In his complaint form, the Worker outlined that he was employed as a Store Manager with the Employer from 28 July 2025 to 10 September 2025.  He alleged that he was unfairly dismissed by the Employer.

The Employer operates within the wholesale and retail trade sector. There was no attendance by or on behalf of the Employer, neither did the Employer provide a written submission outlining its position.

In his complaint form, the Worker outlined that he was not issued with a contract of employment prior to taking up employment with the Employer, and that it was only provided at the close of his second day of employment.  He stated that he was never given a company handbook, nor any set of policies and procedures.  He advised that even at the time of his dismissal such documents were not provided.  He further advised that the initial line manager did advise that each store had site specific handbooks but that he didn’t offer any guidance on what applied in the store in which he was placed for training purposes.

The Worker outlined that a return to work interview was conducted following a day of sick leave and it was highlighted that he had not been given access to the information by his line manager in order to understand the procedure.  He outlined that this position was logged and signed off by both himself and the line manager.  He stated that there was a complex scenario, where procedure was not explained and that the Employer did not conduct a fair process in dismissing him.

At hearing the Worker advised that he commenced in the role of Store Manager on 28 July 2025 and that he was assigned to Store 1 for a couple of weeks training.  He advised that he had been through two interviews before his appointment but that while he had received details of his pay arrangements, no other information was provided in relation to his general terms and conditions until the end of day 2 of employment.  He confirmed that he commenced at Store 1 for a 6 week training period reporting to and with training being overseen by the Operations Manager.

He advised that he was never given a rota for work but that initially he was advised that he would be working from Monday to Friday during his training period.  However, he advised that because he was good at sales he started to be rostered over weekends.  He stated that he was asked to be a mystery shopper in other stores and that having done so, he provided feedback to the Area Manager.  He stated that the Area Manager advised him not to give that feedback to the directors as it would lead to individuals being targeted.  He advised that he reluctantly agreed not to go to the directors but advised that he would tell the truth if he was asked.  The Worker outlined his belief that the Area Manager saw this as him being ambitious and that it created difficulties between them.

The Worker outlined that during his first three weeks he highlighted issues in relation to productivity and introduced analytics to support the sales team.  He stated that during that 3-week period he had 3 positive reviews. He was then assigned to Store 2 and put in charge of reports for all stores. 

The Worker outlined that during this period his Grandfather died and he took some time off as a consequence.  He confirmed that he became upset in work on the day before his Grandfather died (Friday) and that he was sent home.  His Grandfather died the following day (Saturday) and he was off work on the Sunday.  He confirmed he attended work on the Monday and Tuesday following the death of his Grandfather and that he took the remainder of the week off for the funeral and some personal time.  He stated that upon his return to work the following week he was called to a meeting.  He described the tone of that meeting as very intimidating.  He stated that while it was accepted that he had taken time for the funeral he was advised that he needed to communicate better in the future.

The Worker outlined that soon after his child became in and had to attend hospital.  He confirmed that when he phoned to advise of the situation and that he needed to take sick leave.  He stated that he offered to attend work the next day and he also offered to swap his days.  He stated that neither option was acceptable and both days were recorded as sick leave.   

He stated that when he next returned to work he was called to a meeting and he was dismissed for not giving the information regarding the mystery shopper experience and for his sick leave.   He stated that the dismissal took immediate effect and that no probation meetings had ever taken place.  He stated that he was advised at the meeting, which took place on 10 September that he would receive a letter confirming the reasons for the dismissal.  The Worker advised that he did not receive that letter until 19 September 2025 and that the reasons for dismissal cited in the letter were poor communication and sickness absence.

The Worker stated that he was given no advance notice that the meeting was a meeting regarding his dismissal, he did not receive any notice in advance of the meeting, he was not given any option to appeal the decision to dismiss and was not paid in lieu of notice.  He stated that he did make contact with one of the directors following his dismissal.  He advised that the director confirmed he would call him back but that he never received a return call. 

The Worker also outlined that he had sought payment of commission based on his sales during the first 3 weeks.  He stated that his contract stated that he would receive 0.5% of turnover as commission.  However, when he raised the matter he was advised that this provision did not apply during probation.  He confirmed that there was nothing in the contract to clarify that position.

There was no attendance by or on behalf of the Employer, neither did the Employer provide a written submission outlining its position.

On the day of the hearing, I awaited the attendance of the Employer for in excess of 20 minutes beyond the scheduled start time but there was no attendance by or on behalf of the Employer at the hearing.   I allowed 7 days from the day of hearing for the Employer to make contact with the WRC post hearing to explain the absence, before finalising this decision.  No contact was made.

As the Employer was not present and did not provide any written submissions my conclusions in this matter are based solely on the information provided by the Worker. 

On that basis it appears to me that the Employer acted unreasonably in relation to Workers leave associated with his bereavement.  The Employer also acted unreasonably in relation to the requirement for emergency leave associated with an ill child.  Such leave may well have fallen into the realm of Force Majeure leave and it appears this possibility was never given any consideration by the Employer.  Additionally, it is clear from the correspondence issued by the Employer that these two absences from work and the communication surrounding those absences were the reasons for the dismissal.  It is also clear that the Employer did not follow any semblance of a procedure in terms of either managing the probationary process or in ultimately dismissing the Worker.  In all these circumstances I must conclude that the Worker was unfairly dismissed.

Unfair dismissal