LCR23322

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Recommendation No.: ADJ-00056845 (CA-00068981-003)

BACKGROUND:

The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 14 October 2025 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

A Labour Court hearing took place on 18 August 2026.

Page 1

DECISION:

The matter before the Court is a dispute about the termination of the Worker’s employment during his probationary period. The Worker commenced employment on 22 April 2024. The Employer terminated his employment on 2 December 2024.

Worker Position

The Worker’s employment was terminated by the Employer in breach of fair procedures. The Worker’s line manager never raised or discussed any performance issues with him. When his probationary period was extended, the Worker sought clear data from his manager about his performance. No feedback process was put in place. He was told to keep going and he would be fine. The Worker was invited to attend a meeting on 2 December 2024.  He was unaware of the purpose of the meeting or who would be in attendance. He was advised that he had not passed his probation. There was no opportunity to respond to allegations made at that meeting, or to appeal the decision to terminate his employment. The Worker lodged a grievance under the grievance procedure about his probation and performance were assessed. His grievance was not upheld.

Employer Position

The Worker’s employment was subject to a probation period in line with his contract of employment. The Worker’s suitability for the role in which he was employed was a matter of concern.  The question was not settled at the end of his probationary period. The Worker was informed of the Employer’s doubts about his performance. The probationary period was extended to allow the Worker an opportunity to demonstrate that he was suitable for the role. He failed to do so, as he subcontracted two important elements of his role elsewhere. The Employer adopted a fair and reasonable approach to its engagement with the Worker. He was made aware of the situation and given an opportunity to address it but failed to do so.  The Worker’s employment was terminated in line with his contract of employment.

Recommendation

The Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the parties.

The Employer in this case was entitled to terminate the Worker’s employment if it was of the view that the Worker’s performance was not of a satisfactory standard. However, the Court has, on many occasions, emphasised the necessity for an employer to follow fair procedures when a worker is at risk of the loss of employment. While the Employer’s representative contends that the basic elements are fair procedures were applied, from the submissions presented, it appears that did not happen in this case.

The Worker was not informed of any issues with his performance prior to the extension of his probation period. The Worker was not given an opportunity to respond to allegations made at the termination meeting on 2 December 2024. He was not advised of the purpose of the meeting in advance of the meeting.

This Court has consistently held that an employer is not relieved of the obligation to act fairly during a probationary period. Having regard to the circumstances outlined in this case, the Court upholds the appeal made by the Worker and finds that his employment was terminated by the Employer in breach of fair procedures

The Court so decides.

Page 2

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Katie Connolly
ÁM	______________________
27th August 2026	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ms Áine Maunsell, Court Secretary.

Page 3