LCR23253

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: Section 20(1) Industrial Relations Act 1969 (Referral under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969).

BACKGROUND:

The Worker referred this case to the Labour Court on 4 December 2025 in accordance with Section 20 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.

A Labour Court hearing took place on 12 May 2026.

RECOMMENDATION:

Background

This matter was referred to the Court under section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 and was heard in

Page 1

Galway on 12 May 2026. There was no appearance by or on behalf of Midlands Amenity Park (‘the Employer’) at the hearing.

The Worker had been employed by the Company as a part-time Heritage Park Assistant from 13 January 2025 until her employment was terminated on 13 July 2025. The Worker’s contract of employment provided for a six-month probationary period. Her initial probationary period was extended for three months in April 2025. The extended probation would, therefore, have ended on 13 September 2025. However, the Worker was notified on 4 July 2025 that a ‘final probation meeting’ would take place the following day, 5 July 2025. Following that meeting, she was notified by email that her employment had been terminated with one week’s notice due to her alleged ‘inability to deliver on the key tasks and responsibilities outlined during our previous review’.

The Worker’s Submission

The Worker submits that she was dismissed prior to the conclusion of her extended probationary period in retaliation for making a protected disclosure. She also submits that if there were shortcomings in her performance that these were due in no small part to the absence of management support, the lack of training and the dearth of formal policies and procedures in the organisation. Finally, it is her submission that the timing of her dismissal when there were still three months remaining in her (extended) probationary period and the speed at which the decision to dismiss her was made, suggest that the outcome was pre-determined.

Recommendation

The Court is mindful that it has heard only from the Worker in relation to the within dispute and has not had the benefit of hearing the Employer’s version of events. However, the Worker presented a detailed written submission to the Court to which was attached copious supporting documentation, including extensive correspondence between her and the Employer.

Having considered the foregoing, the Court finds that the process that culminated in the Employer’s decision to terminate the Worker’s employment was conducted with undue haste and was devoid of the most rudimentary of fair procedures. The Worker was notified on 4 July that a probationary review meeting would take place less than 24 hours later. At that meeting, without prior warning, she was presented with a litany of allegations and purported shortcomings in her performance to which she was required to make an immediate reply. The decision that her employment was being terminated was communicated to her later that evening by email. She was not advised that she had a right of appeal. It was obvious to the Court that the Worker was particularly aggrieved by the manner in which, and the speed with which, the forgoing process was conducted.

The Court, therefore, recommends that the Parties should engage in-person as soon as is practicable to allow the Worker to raise her concerns directly with the Employer in relation to the manner in which her dismissal was effected and to permit the Employer to address those concerns in a meaningful way and to provide a clear and fulsome explanation for its decision to terminate the Worker’s employment.

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Alan Haugh
TH	______________________
28/07/2026	Deputy Chairman

Page 2

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be in writing and addressed to Ms Therese Hickey, Court Secretary.

Page 3