ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969

Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR-SC-00004153

Parties:

Dispute:

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Gaye Cunningham

Date of Hearing:              01/07/2026

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended) following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any information relevant to the dispute.

Background:

The Worker contends that he was unfairly dismissed and discriminatorily dismissed on the ground of family status.

Summary of Workers Case:

The Worker submitted his complaint in the narrative of the WRC complaint form summarised as follows:

Formal Complaint– Discrimination Based on Family Status

I commenced employment with the Employer on 11 June 2024 as a Solutions Engineer.

The Respondent is a technology company headquartered in Ireland providing eCommerce delivery management software.

My employment was terminated during the probationary period on 26 November 2024.-No reason was given for the termination; however, the letter of termination confirmed that it was not due to any fault or misconduct on my part.

-Based on discussions with my manager, it is without doubt that the reason for dismissal was my request for two weeks’ notice to travel, made in order to arrange childcare for my dependent child.

-I believe this constitutes discrimination based on family status under the Employment Equality Acts 1998–2021.

My wife works in a hybrid capacity and I am the primary caregiver responsible for bringing our child to childcare in the mornings.

I requested two weeks’ notice for travel to allow me to meet these caregiving responsibilities — this was a reasonable and practical request, made in good faith. Despite this, during two one-to-one meetings with my manager — on 14 October 2024 and 21 October 2024 — concerns were raised about my “willingness to travel.”-I clearly explained that I was willing to travel, but needed advance notice due to my family responsibilities.-I had already undertaken several trips during my employment which included:-Regular commuting to the office three days a week-A site visit to Glasgow on 30–31 July 2024-Attendance at the Ecomm Expo in London from 17–19 September 2024-A business trip to Amsterdam on 23 October 2024 for the Post & Parcel event and prospect meeting-Attendance at the company-wide day in Kilkenny on 9 November 2024 These trips demonstrate my commitment to travel and company engagement. I never refused a travel request and always cooperated once notice was provided. At no point did I receive any negative or constructive feedback from management regarding my performance or behaviour. In fact, I received positive feedback from the Product Team, Training Team, Head of People, and Account Executives. The only issue raised during my employment was in relation to my need for advance notice due to childcare arrangements. Despite this, my employment was terminated, and the termination letter stated that it was not due to any misconduct or fault on my part. I believe this strongly indicates that my caregiving responsibilities — and my request for notice — directly influenced the decision to terminate my contract.

Unfair treatment during probation

While I acknowledge that probationary periods allow for flexible termination, this does not exempt an employer from complying with anti-discrimination legislation.

-I was not afforded fair procedures:

-I was given no formal warnings

-No written or verbal concerns were shared in advance

-I was given no opportunity to address or respond to any perceived performance issues The sudden nature of my dismissal — following my request for notice — reflects a lack of transparency and raises serious concerns about compliance with fair process.

Commission-Related Issues

My signed contract included a commission structure of €30,000 annually. Despite repeated requests for clarity — including several direct follow-ups with the CFO — no written documentation or explanation was ever provided regarding how the commission would be calculated or paid. I was ultimately paid €0 in commission throughout my six months of employment.

While this may not amount to a legal breach in itself, I believe it forms part of a broader pattern of poor internal communication, procedural ambiguity, and unfair treatment, and is relevant context for this complaint.

Supporting Documents Provided-

Letter of Termination– confirming dismissal was not due to any fault or misconduct.-Draft Answer from Probation Review– outlines my responses in a welfare review conducted the day before my dismissal (25 November 2024), including a reiteration of my willingness to travel with sufficient notice. While I do not have the final document, this draft accurately reflects my position and intent.

Desired Outcome

I respectfully request that the Workplace Relations Commission investigate this matter and determine whether the dismissal breached the Employment Equality Acts. I am seeking: Acknowledgment of wrongful dismissal on the grounds of family status Recommendations for how employers should handle employee caregiving responsibilities fairly and lawfully Compensation for the loss of income and employment due to the termination

Summary of Employer’s Case:

The Complainant’s employment with the Respondent in the position of Solutions Engineer commenced on 10 June 2024 pursuant to a contract of employment (the Contract) signed by him on 2 May 2024 and terminated on 26 November 2024 within the probationary period provided for therein on the grounds that the Respondent did not consider him suitable for its continued employment in the longer term in a number of respects.

The Respondent is a software company which provides delivery management software for e-commerce platforms. It services clients across the globe and employs 49 people in Ireland and the UK. Over 90% of the Respondent’s customers are based overseas. The Respondent’s solutions are highly bespoke and tailored to the needs of specific customers. These specific needs are driven by physical infrastructure considerations, personnel and warehouse processes.

In broad terms, the role of a Solutions Engineer is to support the sales team from a technical perspective, in order to tailor the technical solution to a specific customer’s needs.

The role requires the employee, amongst other things to –

• attend and speak at events
• be driven and dedicated team players
• forge strong long-lasting relationships with clients
• be willing and able to travel regularly to the UK and EU (planned and reactive)
• work from its offices

The reference to reactive travel refers to travel at short notice to pursue sales leads and to oversee the deployment of the Respondent’s software to its customers. This deployment is often complex and highly tailored to the needs of the customer and its existing processes and infrastructure.

During the Complainant’s interview for the position, it was made clear to him that he would be required to work from the Respondent’s said offices on Mondays, Tuesdays and Fridays, but could work from home on Wednesdays and Thursdays, save where he might be required to attend the offices on these days also for ad hoc training, client meetings or other events.

It was also made clear to the Complainant that he would be required to travel frequently, both within Ireland and internationally, on a planned and reactive basis, and that this was an essential part of the job. The Complainant asked how frequently he would be required to travel, in response to which the Respondent advised him that it would not be possible to provide him with a regular schedule in this regard, that it would depend on what sales opportunities arose from time to time, and that it could be within Ireland, the UK, Europe or further afield. By way of illustration, the Complainant was given an overview of the recent travel undertaken by the Enterprise Sales Account Executive (with whom the Solutions Engineer would be expected to travel on a regular basis), to give a sense of the frequency of travel expected, including trips within Europe but also to Miami, Florida. The Complainant accepted this, and did not indicate that he had any particular difficulty in travelling, or that he required any specific notice prior to travelling.

The Complainant was successful in his application for a role and was offered the job on 29 April 2024. A contract of employment was provided to the Complainant and signed on 2 May 2024 and commenced employment on 10 June 2024.  The Contract expressly provides that – “Due to the role, you may be required to travel for work and you should have no impediment in doing so. You must maintain a full clean driving licence and have the ability to drive a motor vehicle. In addition, you must be prepared to travel freely within the EEA and UK and have no known reason to prevent you from travelling to the USA and Australia specifically.” (Emphasis added)

The Contract further provides that during the probationary period, the employee may be dismissed for any reason if the Respondent finds that they are unsuitable for the role.

During the recruitment and subsequent “onboarding” processes, the Respondent also emphasised the importance it placed on “face to face” and “in person” interaction with its customers and potential customers, in terms of developing and maintaining relationships, to the Complainant, and he did not indicate, at least initially, that he had any difficulty with this approach.

number of overseas engagements without difficulty in July and September 2024, these being planned visits to Glasgow, Kilkenny and London respectively. In particular, the visit to Glasgow centred around a visit to a warehouse of a customer, which was important to assist the Complainant in understanding the complexity of warehouse operations and how this interacted with the technical solutions offered by the Respondent.

In October 2024 the Complainant attended an event in Amsterdam on a reactive basis (i.e. with just 24 hours’ notice), but travelled there and back on the same day when the Respondent had in fact asked him to attend for the full three days over which the event took place. The reason given by the Complainant for his inability to attend the event in full was “personal circumstances” and the short notice given to him, which the Respondent accepted on that occasion. The Complainant did not, however, at that point, indicate to the Respondent that travel would be an issue for him in general terms going forward.

On or about 7 October 2024, it was advised to the Complainant and his colleagues in the wider sales and product teams that the Respondent might need to send a team to New Zealand in approximately five weeks’ time to support an important customer located there, and specifically to conduct a workshop with this customer on site. The opportunity in question was one of the largest contracts ever pursued by the Respondent and was being led by the CEO. The need for engagement with the customer on site, rather than remotely, was considered imperative to allay any fears the customer might have about the Respondent’s ability to provide adequate support across a different time zone and large geographical distance, and to protect the business accordingly. Notwithstanding this, however, the Complainant categorically refused to travel to New Zealand under any circumstances, even where he was given plenty of advance notice, which in this case would have been at least five weeks. The Complainant moreover advised his line manager, Ms J that he could just attend the workshop remotely, and that in his opinion there was no need for him to be physically present at same, notwithstanding the Respondent’s underlying business philosophy in this regard which had been communicated to him during the recruitment and subsequent onboarding processes, and the importance to the Respondent of protecting the business.

The Respondent was disconcerted at the Complainant’s attitude in relation to the said proposed trip to New Zealand, and the matter was consequently raised with him by Ms. J at their weekly one-to-one meeting on 14 October 2024. During this, the Complainant advised Ms. J for the first time that he would require at least two weeks’ notice prior to any travel he was required to undertake anywhere, and not just to far flung destinations such as New Zealand. Ms. J responded by advising him that while the Respondent would endeavour to give him as much notice as it could, it would simply not be possible to give him a minimum of two weeks’ notice on every occasion, to which the Complainant responded in turn by repeating that this was what he required, and that he would have to join meetings with customers remotely where this notice could not be given; he also repeated that he would not be travelling to New Zealand, irrespective of how much notice was given. When the importance of travel, and the company’s inability to give the Complainant two weeks’ notice every time he was required to travel was raised with him again by Ms. J at their next one-to-one meeting on 21 October 2024, the Complainant simply doubled-down on his position and repeated to her that this was his minimum notice requirement, that he didn’t see the need to be physically present at meetings with customers, and that as far as he was concerned it was perfectly acceptable to attend such meetings remotely. This topic was also discussed at one-to-one meetings on 11 and 20 November.

The Complainant appeared to the Respondent to be unable to recognise and understand the Respondent’s approach to the importance of in-person meetings in developing lasting customer relationships, or to understand the necessity for him to be on-site to conduct physical inspections of a customer’s site. The continued insistence that such interactions could be done just as well on a remote basis was demonstrative of an inflexible attitude towards work. The Respondent considered that in light of the attitude of the Complainant towards essential requirements of his role, the Complainant was not suited to the role. Accordingly, the Respondent decided to terminate his employment on 26 November 2024 within his probation in line with his contract. The Complainant was paid one weeks’ pay in lieu of notice.

While the within complaint is brought under the Industrial Relations Acts and not the Employment Equality Acts, the Complainant makes reference to discrimination on the grounds of family status in his complaint form. The assertion that the requirement of the Respondent that the Solutions Engineer be in a position to travel abroad, including on a reactive basis, is discriminatory on the grounds of family status is rejected in the strongest possible terms. The travel requirements as part of the role are based on clear and objective business requirements. The responsive approach to in-person client interactions is a key part of the Respondent’s approach to business and has allowed an Irish company based in Wexford to forge successful and trusted relationships and integrate its solutions with household name business across the world.

The Respondent fosters a supportive working environment for all its employees, including those with young children. Following the termination of the Complainant’s employment was backfilled by the Principal Products Manager, who is a mother of two children under six years of age. This employee travelled extensively with other members of the team while performing the Solutions Engineer functions, including on the trip to New Zealand which the Complainant refused to fulfil.

A replacement to the Solutions Engineer role was selected and commenced employment on 26 June 2025 and the requirements in respect of travel are unchanged. The current Solutions Engineer, like the Complainant, is a parent with young children, and undertakes regular travel in line with the expectations of the role.

The Complainant makes reference to the fact that he was not paid commission over the course of his employment with the Respondent. While there is no entitlement to commission included in the Contract, it is not contested that the Complainant was informed that he would have the opportunity to earn commission as part of his role. The Respondent does not have a formal commission plan however the consistent practise within the company is that commission is paid on deals closed during the period of employment. As none of the deals that the Complainant was working on closed, he was not eligible to earn commission. The Respondent notes that the Complainant appears to acknowledge that no legal provision has been contravened in respect of his commission.

The requirement for the Complainant to undertake planned and reactive travel, and to be on-site for current and prospective was a core requirement of his role. The Complainant’s refusal to undertake any travel unless on two weeks’ notice, or to travel to certain countries under any circumstances, and insistence that remote meetings were an appropriate substitute was manifestly at odds with the Respondent’s approach to building client relationships, and demonstrated an inflexible approach to work.

The Complainant was dismissed within his probationary period as he was not an appropriate fit for the role.  The Complainant was not discriminated against on grounds of family status, or any other ground.

Conclusions:

I note the requirement for the employee to engage in both planned and reactive travel is contained in the contract of employment.

I note the Worker in this case was not prepared to travel without two weeks’ notice of travel requirements.  From the Employer’s point this was unacceptable and it is clear from the submission that the requirement for face to face interactions with customers and the need to travel to their locations was an essential part of the role. The Worker relies on the Employment Equality Acts to present the case that he has been discriminated against on the ground of family status.  As has been pointed out in the Employer’s submission, the Worker referred his case to the WRC under the Industrial Relations Act which provides for a recommendation to be made to resolve the dispute.            In this case, as the referral is under the Industrial Relations Act, I make no finding on the Worker’s contention that the Employer has breached the Employment Equality Act.

I note the points made by the Worker in relation to commission that there was no written clarification on this issue and I cannot therefore make any recommendation on that matter.

While the Employer makes a strong argument that the Worker was dismissed as he was not an appropriate fit for the role, I do note that no right of appeal was given to the Worker in relation to his dismissal and in that circumstance, there was a flaw in the manner of his dismissal.  I recommend that to bring an end to this dispute that the Employer pay the Worker a fortnight’s pay in the amount of €3,076.

Recommendation:

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.

I recommend that to bring an end to this dispute that the Employer pay the Worker a fortnight’s pay in the amount of €3,076.

Dated:   27/08/2026

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Gaye Cunningham

Key Words: