Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

An Employee

An Employer

Representatives

 Operations Manager

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969

IR - SC - 00004841

30/07/2025

The Worker commenced employment in 4 June 2025 and was dismissed by the Employer on 24 July 2025. Submissions were relied upon and shared with the Employer in advance of the hearing.

The Employer was represented by the Operations Manager. Again submissions were relied upon and shared with the Worker.

The name of the Employer was amended at the outset of the hearing.

The Worker submitted that he commenced employment with the Employer in approximately June 2025 before his employment was terminated in July 2025

He stated that he was still undergoing training, primarily working on food preparation duties, and was gradually improving in his performance and learning additional responsibilities.

The Worker submitted that concerns were raised regarding comments he had made to certain colleagues. Following a discussion with his manager, he apologised to the employees concerned and adjusted his behaviour. He maintained that he believed the matter had been resolved and that no further concerns had been raised with him.

The Worker submitted that he was autistic and had been open about this with colleagues. He stated that any comments he made were never intended to cause offence and that, at times, his autism affected his social communication.

The Worker submitted that on 24 July 2025 he attended work expecting to complete a normal shift. He stated that he was unexpectedly called to a meeting and informed that he would no longer be receiving any further shifts because staff members did not wish to work with him. He submitted that he attempted to explain his position and refer to his autism, but the decision had already been made.

The Worker submitted that he was never provided with copies of complaints, never received written warnings, was not invited to a disciplinary meeting, and was not given an opportunity to respond to the allegations prior to the termination of his employment. He further submitted that no investigation was carried out and that he only became aware of the details of the complaints through the Workplace Relations Commission process. He denied receiving a contract or handbook.

The Worker disputed certain allegations relied upon by the Employer and submitted that some incidents had been misunderstood or taken out of context. He further submitted that he suffered financial loss following the termination of his employment and only secured alternative employment in August 2026.

The Employer submitted that the Worker was recruited following a successful interview and trial shift and commenced employment on a full-time basis. During his probationary period, concerns were raised regarding comments and interactions involving female members of staff.

The Employer submitted that complaints were brought to management's attention in late June 2025 and that a female supervisor had reported feeling uncomfortable with comments made by the Worker. The Employer stated that a verbal warning was issued to the Worker on 1 July 2025 and that he was advised that such behaviour had to cease.

The Employer submitted that further complaints were received after the warning, including a complaint from an 18-year-old employee and reports that other female employees were uncomfortable working with the Worker. It was submitted that some employees had considered leaving their employment due to the situation.

The Employer submitted that the complaints caused significant staffing and rostering difficulties within what was a small team. Management considered it necessary to act in order to protect employees and maintain an appropriate working environment.

The Employer submitted that the Worker's employment was not terminated because of performance concerns, although there had been some issues regarding his progress in the role. The principal reason for the termination was stated to be the repeated complaints received from staff and the impact those complaints had on the workplace.

The Employer submitted that a meeting was held with the Worker on 24 July 2025 at which he was informed that his employment would be terminated during his probationary period. The Employer stated that the Worker disclosed his autism only after the decision had been communicated and that this disclosure did not affect the decision-making process.

The Employer further submitted that the Worker remained within his six-month probationary period and that the contract of employment permitted termination on one week's notice during that period. The Employer maintained that the decision to terminate the Worker's employment was reasonable and was taken in response to multiple staff complaints and operational concerns.

Having considered the submissions and evidence of both parties, it was found that the central issue in dispute was not whether complaints had been made concerning the Worker's conduct, but whether the Worker had been afforded fair procedures before the decision was taken to terminate his employment.

The Employer's submission was that the decision to terminate the Worker's employment arose from complaints made by female members of staff who alleged that comments made by the Worker caused them discomfort and created difficulties within the workplace. While it was accepted that the Employer is required to invoke an investigation into such complaints and had an obligation to provide a safe and respectful workplace for all employees, it was also found that allegations of misconduct could not be relied upon to justify dismissal without the application of fair procedures in accordance with S.I. No. 146/2000 - Industrial Relations Act, 1990 (Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures) (Declaration) Order, 2000.  This is particularly relevant where the Employer did not present its Dignity at Work or equivalent policy.

It was found that no formal investigation was carried out by the Employer. The Employer accepted during the hearing that the Worker was not provided with copies of complaints, witness statements, or other evidence relied upon in reaching the decision to terminate his employment. It was further accepted that the Worker was not furnished with sufficient particulars of the allegations to allow him to properly understand and respond to the case being made against him.

The submission of the parties established that the Worker received an informal verbal warning in early July 2025. However, no written record of this warning was provided and no formal disciplinary process followed. Although the Employer submitted that further complaints were received after the warning had issued, those complaints were not disclosed to the Worker and were not put to him for response before the decision to terminate his employment was made.

It was further found that the Worker attended work on 24 July 2025 expecting to work a normal shift. He was not notified in advance that a meeting had been convened to address allegations concerning his conduct, nor was he informed that his employment was at risk. The evidence demonstrated that the meeting resulted in the immediate termination of his employment. The Worker was not afforded an opportunity to respond to the allegations before the decision was taken.

While the Employer sought to rely upon the fact that the Worker was serving a probationary period, it was found that probationary status did not remove an employee's entitlement to fair procedures where allegations of misconduct formed the basis of a dismissal. The Employer's evidence was clear that the termination arose primarily from complaints regarding the Worker's conduct rather than issues of performance or capability. In such circumstances, it was found that the Employer was required to conduct an appropriate investigation and disciplinary process before reaching any adverse decision.

It was also noted that the Worker disputed aspects of the allegations relied upon by the Employer. In the absence of any investigation and having regard to the failure to afford the Worker an opportunity to challenge or respond to the allegations, it was found that the Employer had not reached its decision following a fair and balanced investigation of the relevant facts. Furthermore, it was noted that the Worker attended the meetings without being accompanied yet the Employer arranged for two members of management to be present.

Accordingly, it was found that the Employer failed to afford the Worker fair procedures.