Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

An Employer

Representatives

Lyons Skelly Solicitors

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969

 IR - SC - 00005128

09/09/2025

The Worker was a HDV driver with the Employer from 11 March 2025 to 2 September 2025. It was his dispute that he was unfairly dismissed from his employment. 

The Employer’s Solicitor objected to the investigation of this dispute. It was submitted the Employer did not have the benefit of legal advice at the time of its response to Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) in October and November 2025.

This objection is rejected for the following reasons:

The Employer was notified of the dispute on 23 September 2025. Contained in that cover letter was the opportunity to object to the WRC investigate the dispute: “Section 36(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990, any party has the right to object to an investigation of this dispute by an Adjudication Officer.” The Employer was afforded 21 days from the date of that letter to object.

By email dated, 15 October 2025, the Employer responded to the Worker’s dispute putting forward its version of event including documentation. In particular, the Employer expressly consented to the dispute being investigated by the WRC.

The 21-day period expired on 22 October 2025, and the Worker was notified that his dispute would proceed to adjudication.

On the basis of the Employer’s consent to the dispute being investigated within the 21 day period provided for in Section 36(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990.

The Worker's submission was that he was dismissed without notice following an incident at a construction site on 2 September 2025. The Worker stated that he arrived at the site early in the morning and, having been granted access by security personnel, attempted to reverse his truck into a designated parking area. He submitted that there was no spotter available to assist him and that no other workers were present at the time. The Worker stated that, due to the confined nature of the area, the vehicle struck a concrete barrier while reversing. He submitted that the Employer terminated his employment immediately following the incident.

The Worker further submitted that he had previously been involved in a serious road traffic incident in or around June 2025 when a tyre on his vehicle exploded while travelling on a motorway. He stated that he required hospital treatment following that incident and felt that the Employer showed little concern for his wellbeing. The Worker submitted that the Employer's attitude towards him changed after that accident and that he felt he was treated differently thereafter. He further stated that, following his dismissal, he was unable to secure regular employment for several weeks and experienced financial hardship as a result. The Worker maintained that the Employer's decision to dismiss him summarily following the reversing incident was unfair.

The Employer submitted that the Worker commenced employment as an HGV Driver on 11 March 2025 and remained within his probationary period when his employment ended. The Employer stated that the Worker was involved in four separate collisions between May and September 2025 while operating the Employer's vehicles.

 The Employer also submitted that complaints had been received regarding the Worker's failure to wear appropriate PPE and that a key client had indicated that the Worker would not be permitted to return to its site following the collision on 1 September 2025.

The Employer submitted that, due to concerns regarding health and safety, a driving assessment was conducted on 19 August 2025 which assessed the Worker as a high-risk driver requiring further training and retesting. The Employer stated that its insurer subsequently refused to provide cover for the Worker.

It was further submitted that the Worker had indicated in correspondence that he would not be renewing his immigration permission or requiring a work permit, which the Employer considered to be a resignation effective at a later date.

The Employer submitted that, having regard to the Worker's driving record, the health and safety risks involved, its obligations to other road users, its insurance requirements and its commercial obligations, it decided that the Worker could no longer be employed as an HGV driver.

The Employer denied that the Worker had been unfairly dismissed and further submitted that any alleged financial losses had not been substantiated and that the Worker was obliged to mitigate any such losses.

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

The Worker was provided with a contract of employment, which he signed on 23 July 2025. The contract did not contain a probationary clause.

Notwithstanding the absence of an express probationary provision, the concerns identified by the Employer related to the Worker's performance and immigration status during the first six months of his employment, namely the period from 11 March 2025 to 2 September 2025.

Accordingly, it is found that the dismissal occurred during what would ordinarily be regarded as the Worker's probationary period and that it was based on performance-related concerns.