Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Program Manager

A Power Management Company

Representatives

Self

Laura Kerin of 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 - 00003984

21/03/2025

The Worker commenced employment with the Employer on 1st December 2024 as a program manager and her employment terminated on 25th February 2025. She has brought this dispute because she says that she was unfairly dismissed while on probation.

The Worker submits that her dismissal was unfair and not based on any failure to meet performance standards. She states that the reasons given by the Employer, namely that she failed to meet it’s standards or did not deliver tangible contributions, are unfounded and contradicted by the work she carried out during her employment. The Worker contends that the program she was assigned to manage was significantly below industry standards on her arrival, lacking basic structural elements such as defined scope, exit criteria, testing protocols, and stakeholder roles. In response, she undertook work to introduce recognised project‑management structures and methodologies.

The Worker explained that she repeatedly sought clarity around priorities but was informed that “everything is a priority.” She maintains that no goals, deliverables, or performance criteria were ever communicated to her. She outlined extensive work undertaken to stabilise and restructure the program, and proposing improvements.

The Worker further states that she maintained constructive working relationships with team members and that her leadership style was consistent with standard project‑management practice. She also notes that she lacked basic operational supports, including essential equipment, despite multiple formal requests. She submits that her termination occurred prematurely and without any meaningful feedback, performance conversation, probation review, or opportunity to address concerns. She stated that she proactively attempted to engage with her manager during the weeks leading up to her dismissal but was not afforded clear guidance or intervention.

The Worker emphasised that her probationary period was contractually six months, extendable to eleven months, yet she was dismissed after only two months and twenty‑five days, during which no concerns were raised and no performance procedures were applied. She asserted that the early learning curve associated with a complex program‑management role was not acknowledged and that cultural and communication‑style discussions initiated during her onboarding were left incomplete. The Worker concluded that there was no factual or procedural justification for her dismissal and that the work she undertook constituted necessary foundation‑building for a programme that had been underperforming long before her arrival.

The Employer stated that the Worker commenced employment on 1 December 2024 in the role of Program Manager and was dismissed on 25 February 2025 following an unsuccessful probationary period. The Employer says that the Worker’s duties formed part of the project team responsible for deployment of a planning solution across a global supply chain organisation.

The Employer asserts that the Worker’s performance and integration were assessed continuously throughout her probation. According to the Employer, the Worker participated in regular touch‑base meetings with her line manager during December 2024 and January–February 2025, during which expectations, standards of work, and required deliverables were repeatedly communicated. The Employer maintains that the Worker was instructed on the Company’s established reporting structures, expected levels of detail, and project‑management standards, and that deficiencies in her submissions were highlighted on several occasions, both verbally and in writing.

The Employer stated that concerns arose regarding the Worker’s engagement, motivation, leadership, and ability to understand and work within existing processes before proposing improvements. It is submitted that the Worker continued to suggest new frameworks without first demonstrating an understanding of the current state of the project, and that she made unilateral decisions despite being told that project‑related changes must be agreed collaboratively with the wider team. The Employer further noted that several onboarding tasks were left incomplete and alleged that the Worker displayed a lack of attention to detail and follow‑through in administrative matters.

The Employer also cited performance‑related issues, including missed deadlines, failure to progress assigned actions, insufficient detail in project‑management materials, and inadequate development of key elements such as a business‑level project plan and risk assessment. The Employer stated that when compared to other reporting outputs within the programme, the Worker’s submissions did not meet the required standard. It was further submitted that the Worker’s comments comparing the Company’s practices unfavourably to previous employers raised concerns regarding her commitment to the organisation.

The Employer maintains that the Worker was supported through a structured onboarding programme, access to senior personnel, training options and regular contact from her manager. It contends that the standards required of the role, including strong leadership, project‑management skills, and professional behaviours, were inherent to the seniority of the position and were clearly communicated throughout employment.

The Employer states that at a probationary review meeting on 25 February 2025, attended by HR and management, the Worker was advised that she had not met the required standards of performance and attitude. Her employment was terminated in accordance with the probationary clause of her contract, and she was issued with written confirmation and paid in lieu of notice.

The Employer also noted that, under Company policy, no right of appeal applies during probation.

The Employer relied on the contractual probationary provisions, which permit termination on notice during probation, and referred to case law confirming that an employer is not required to afford full procedural safeguards when terminating employment for performance‑related reasons during probation. It submits that a reasonable employer in the same circumstances would have reached the same conclusion, and therefore the claim is without merit.

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

The Worker in this dispute was unaware of the basis for her termination. At the hearing, she said that she had waited a long time to find out what the reason for the dismissal was. She thought that everything was going fine and said that she had received no feedback and that there was no probation review. She addressed the Employer’s statement that performance was being continually monitored but said that there was no probation plan and no performance reviews. She had no idea that things weren’t going well and was never told that her performance was not as expected or asked to do anything differently.

The Employer’s position was that it exercised it’s right to continuously assess. It was accepted that a more informal approach had been taken, but the contract of employment specifically states that:

‘Your employment will be on the basis of a probationary period of 6 months. Your performance in your job will be reviewed during this period.

The company reserves the right to extend the probation on an exceptional basis if it is deemed that the extension would be in the interest of the employee. In any case it will not exceed a period of 11 months.

Your employment may be terminated on two weeks’ notice (or salary in lieu) by the Employer at any time during or at the end of this period.

During your probationary period, you may terminate your employment on giving two weeks’ notice in writing (or such lesser period agreed by the employer). The Employer reserves the right to pay you in lieu of any unexpired period of notice.

The Employer reserves the right to terminate the contract of employment during this probationary period immediately and without notice in the event of any misconduct or other substantial grounds.’

The Employer was of the view that the Worker had been made aware when she was not meeting the standards expected through regular weekly meetings. Any suggestion that there was no discussion of requirements was refuted. While the language used may not have been particularly plain or formal, there was still an informal management of the Worker’s performance. It was stated that she had not done anything inherently wrong, but was just not the right fit.

The Employer also stated that it was currently carrying out a review of it’s probationary processes. It has a number of sites, all with different procedures, and so a restructure was currently in process to ensure a consistent approach. The Employer said that there is no legal obligation relating to fair procedures, but it wants to ensure that no blindsiding occurs in the future and so the intention is to make the process more formal.

The Employer strongly refuted that there was no discussion of requirements with the Worker. However, in response to questions from the Adjudication Officer, acknowledged that the probationary process could have had more clarity and asked for the recommendation to relate to the tightening up of this process.

Following statements made by her former manager, the Worker strongly disagreed with the characterisation of events.

It is clear to me that the communications which took place with the Worker in this case fell far short of what is expected during a probationary period. I accept the Worker’s clear confusion regarding why her employment was terminated and do not see any written communications to her making it clear that she was at risk of not passing her probation.

It was stated that there is currently a review of the probationary process underway and the Employer is to be commended for proactively taking this step. It is encouraging to see that steps are being taken to ensure that future workers will have clarity around the process.

The Employer relied on a Court of Appeal case, namely O’Donovan -v- Over-C Technology Ltd & Anor [2021] IECA 37 which states that there are no implied rights to fair procedures in a probationary period. The Employer also asserts in submissions that the probationary clause in the contract states that “The Employer’s disciplinary procedure will not apply during the probationary period.” I do not see that particular line in the clause relating to probation in the Worker’s contract. On the contrary, the Worker’s contract states:

“[Employer] look forward to a productive employment relationship and will support you in the performance of your role. However, the Employer retains the right to discipline you, up to and including dismissal, following due procedure, on grounds of:

·       capability

·       incompetence or poor work performance

·       misconduct (serious or persistent)

·       failure to carry out reasonable instructions

·       legal reasons

·       some other substantial reason.

Certain breaches of organisational rules and of established custom and practice may also render you liable to dismissal.

All [emphasis added] disciplinary action and dismissals will be carried out  in accordance with the organisation’s disciplinary procedure, a copy of which will be given to you on your commencement.”

A plain reading of the above contractual clause could well provide an explicit right to fair procedures during the probationary period in this particular case.

In any event, this is not an employment rights complaint but rather it is a dispute under the Industrial Relations Act. I am therefore guided by the recommendations of the Labour Court in similar circumstances.

I note the Labour Court Recommendation in Hamilton Insurance Dac -and- A Worker LCR22710 where it awarded €10,000 in compensation to a worker who was denied fair procedures when she was dismissed during the probationary period for performance issues that she was unaware of and not given the opportunity to address. The Court in that recommendation stated:

“It is the view of the Court that whenever a worker, including a worker who is on probation, is at risk of the loss of his or her job, it is incumbent on the employer to make the worker aware of the situation and of the reasons. In addition, where the issue arises from the conduct or performance of the worker, he or she should be afforded an opportunity to address the decision maker in his or her defence.

There is no submission before the Court that these basic elements of fair procedure were applied in the case of the worker and the Court accepts that the sudden termination of her employment without warning has had a significant effect upon her.”

Similarly, in a recommendation made by the Labour Court on 12th January, 2026, namely Baxter International Inc. and A Worker LCR23207, it stated:

“The Court’s role in disputes such as these is to hear the parties and give its opinion on how the matter might be resolved. There are no matters of law arising.”

And

“Based on the uncontested submission of the Worker, the Court concludes that the worker was dismissed from his employment without the application of any fair process or procedures. This Court has consistently held that an employer is not relieved of the obligation to act fairly during a probationary period.

The Court recommends that the employer pay the Worker compensation in the amount of €7,500 in recognition that the dismissal of the Worker took place without him being afforded the opportunity to avail of procedures that would have allowed him to put his case prior to him being dismissed.”

While it is the Employer’s case in this dispute that the performance issues were put to the Worker, it is clear to me that she was not advised that passing her probation was in danger or given a realistic opportunity to remedy any perceived issues. For that reason, there was no application of a fair process or procedures and the termination of her employment was therefore not fair.

In recognition of those procedural shortcomings, I recommend that the Employer makes a gesture of goodwill to the Worker in the form of compensation in the amount of €10,000.

Industrial Relations – unfair dismissal