Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

A Company

Representatives

Self-represented 

Ibec

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00005781

02/12/2025

The worker was employed as a Utilities Operator from the mid-September 2025 up until the beginning of December 2025 when his employment was terminated. He claims he was unfairly dismissed as he was not afforded fair procedures before his employment terminated.

The employer denies it was an unfair dismissal as the worker’s performance was not up to standard and the employment terminated during probation.

The Labour Court recently issued two recommendations on the requirements for fair procedures even in circumstances when employees are on probation. These cases (Toyota v. A worker LCR23305, Laguna Nurseries Limited v. A Worker, LCR23312) were copied to the parties during the hearing and each side was invited to make oral submissions on their relevance, if any, to their dispute.

The worker said he only received the employer submissions five days in advance of the hearing and requested that this be noted. Although the worker was granted additional time to review the submission, he was satisfied to continue with the hearing.

He said that a review meeting took place on 28th November 2025. He was dissatisfied with how this review meeting went. He submitted a series of questions afterwards seeking information on his under-performance and training records.

He said he received a phone call on 2nd December 2025 to attend a meeting that same day. At the meeting, he was informed that his employment was terminated with immediate effect. He was given a termination letter at this meeting. He said he was escorted off the site. Since then, he has been having difficulty obtaining records from the company. He claims he was not afforded fair procedures as there was no prior notice of the meeting. He could not have arranged to be accompanied to the meeting given the short notice. He said he received limited feedback over the course of his employment, and when he attended the meeting on 2nd December 2025, the termination letter was pre-prepared. He said he was not given a performance improvement plan. His employment terminated very suddenly as he was to attend further training on 8th December 2025. He said that prior to the termination he sent an email about getting hands-on training instead of classroom style training. He said he felt the termination was due to having raised issues with management.

After reviewing the two Labour Court Recommendations, he said his circumstances were similar in that he was not afforded fair procedures.

The employer representative outlined the role that the worker was employed to undertake. As he was part of a new team, the initial weeks of training were in the classroom. The new operation was to commence in January 2026. The representative said that an email was sent on 6th October 2025 to team members which outlined the expected standards. She said that the trainer reviewed his classroom attendance on 1st December 2025. She said this review was not favourable towards the worker as it noted that he took no notes during classroom sessions. Although the worker requested hands-on training, this was not possible and this was communicated to him.

It was submitted that the worker did not pass his probation and as additional training would not have closed the skills gap, his employment was terminated. She confirmed that the worker submitted questions after the probation meeting although did not submit a grievance.

On the Labour Court Recommendations, the representative distinguished these cases, as probationary procedures were followed in this case. She said that the expected standards had been outlined and the trainers review of the worker was unsatisfactory.

In conducting my investigation, I have considered all relevant submissions presented by the parties. Other than the general email to the team of 6th October 2025, there was insufficient records provided on the worker’s under-performance. The email of 1st December 2025 from the trainer could not have been included in the probation review which took place prior to this.

Although the worker was on probation, it is common case (Toyota v. A worker LCR23305, Laguna Nurseries Limited v. A Worker, LCR23312) that fair procedures are still a requirement. The worker was called to a meeting without notice and had his employment was terminated that same day. He was given the termination letter there and then.

Although it is an employer’s prerogative to assess performance during probation, this is a two-way process with formal records to ensure a worker is on notice, particularly if there are performance issues. A deficit of records on under-performance can lead to suspicion after a sudden termination. The probation period was in place for six-months so there was no necessity for matters to be concluded as soon as they were.

The employer representative cited O’Donovan v Over C Technology [2021] IECA 37 as authority that fair procedures did not apply during probation when under-performance is at issue. I have considered this judgment which relates to wrongful dismissal at common law. This differs from a workplace setting where employer/employee relations allow for fair procedures within the normal industrial relations framework, as per the two Labour Court Recommendations.

As there is merit in the worker’s dispute, I recommend that the employer pay the worker gross wages of €2,770.00 which is the equivalent of 3-weeks’ pay, in full and final settlement of the dispute.

Probation, Fair Procedures