Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

An Employee

An Employer

Representatives

Self-Represented

HR Manager

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 - 00004925

14/08/2025

The Worker commenced employment with the Employer as a Health and Safety Officer on 20 May 2025. His employment was subject to a six-month probationary period pursuant to his contract of employment. His employment was terminated on 2 July 2025.

As the Worker did not have the requisite service to pursue a claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, he referred a dispute to the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969, alleging that his dismissal was unfair.

The Employer submits that the Worker’s employment was terminated during probation following concerns regarding suitability for the role and alignment with organisational expectations.

The Worker submits that at the interview stage he made clear that he wished to work on a single project only and that this was agreed. He states that after commencing employment he was instructed to work across two projects, which he maintains was contrary to what had been agreed.

The Worker says he queried this issue with management and sought clarification. He submits that shortly thereafter his employment was terminated without adequate explanation. He contends that he carried out his duties competently and that the termination was unfair.

In a subsequent written submission, the Worker further asserted that his dismissal constituted recrimination arising from his having raised a workplace grievance.

The Worker also submitted screenshots of email inbox activity which he stated demonstrated attempts to mitigate his financial loss following dismissal.

The Employer submits that the role advertised and offered involved supporting two projects located on the same campus and that this was explained at interview. It states that the Worker had expressed concerns about travelling between locations and was assured that no travel between sites would be required, as both projects were co-located.

The Employer submits that concerns arose shortly after the Worker’s commencement of employment regarding the Worker’s engagement with core duties and expectations of the role. Management states that discussions took place with the Worker to clarify expectations and provide support.

The Employer submits that it became apparent during the probationary period that the Worker was not a suitable fit for the role or organisation and a decision was made to terminate his employment in accordance with the contractual probationary clause. The Worker received one month’s pay in lieu of notice notwithstanding his short service.

The Employer denies that the Worker raised any workplace grievance, whether in accordance with internal policies and procedures or at all or that the dismissal constituted recrimination.

In conducting my investigation, I have considered all oral and written evidence and submissions presented by the parties.

It is not in dispute that the Worker was employed for approximately six weeks and remained within a contractual probationary period at the time of termination. While a worker with less than twelve months’ service is not covered by the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 (as amended), the fact that they may be on probation does not negate the employee’s entitlement to fair procedures in relation to grievance and disciplinary matters.

Nature of the role

The central factual dispute concerns whether the Worker was recruited to work on one project only or across two projects on the same campus.

I note the oral evidence of the Employer’s Health and Safety Director and the contemporaneous email correspondence in which the Employer confirmed that the role had always involved supporting two projects located at a single site. The Worker disputed that interpretation. However, the contract of employment did not designate a specific project assignment, and project-based allocation formed part of the operational requirements of the role.

On balance, I am satisfied that a genuine misunderstanding arose between the parties regarding expectations of the role rather than any unilateral alteration to agreed terms of employment.

Alleged workplace grievance

The Worker asserted in written submissions received by the WRC the day before the hearing, and during the hearing, that his dismissal arose because he raised a workplace grievance.

When asked to identify the grievance relied upon, the Worker referred to an email seeking clarification regarding project allocation. That correspondence, in my view, amounts to a request for clarification or an expression of disagreement regarding work allocation rather than the invocation of a formal or informal grievance procedure.

The Employer had an established grievance procedure contained within the employee handbook. There is no evidence that this procedure was invoked or that the Worker framed his communication as a complaint of wrongdoing or unfair treatment requiring investigation.

I therefore do not find evidence supporting the contention that the dismissal constituted recrimination for raising a workplace grievance.

Probationary Employment and Fair Procedures

A probationary period serves as a period during which both employer and employee may assess suitability for the role and the viability of the employment relationship. The existence of a probationary period does not displace the requirement to act in accordance with principles of procedural fairness. Rather, the nature and extent of procedural steps required must be considered in light of the probationary context, where an employer is entitled to assess performance, engagement and overall suitability, provided that concerns are communicated and the employee is afforded an opportunity to understand expectations and respond. It is generally expected that where concerns arise during probation, these are communicated to the employee so that expectations are understood and an opportunity exists to address them prior to termination.

Against that background, I turn to consider the extent to which the Employer engaged with the Worker during the course of his probationary employment and whether the procedures followed were consistent with those principles.

I have had regard to S.I. No. 146 of 2000, the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures, which emphasises the importance of communication, clarity of expectations, and the opportunity for employees to raise concerns. The evidence before me indicates that concerns regarding the Worker’s engagement with aspects of the role arose shortly after commencement and were discussed with him by management. The Employer’s Health and Safety Manager gave evidence of discussions held with the Worker during June 2025 in which expectations associated with the role were clarified and feedback was provided with a view to supporting him in the position. The evidence further indicates that ongoing interactions took place between the Worker and management concerning both role expectations and the allocation of work across projects.

I am satisfied that the Worker was aware of the Employer’s expectations and that management engaged with him regarding those expectations during the course of his probationary period. The Worker, for his part, raised concerns regarding project allocation which were responded to by management through contemporaneous correspondence. While disagreement remained between the parties, the evidence does not support a conclusion that the Worker was denied an opportunity to raise concerns or that the Employer failed to engage with him prior to reaching its decision.

I also note the evidence of the Health and Safety Manager that concerns regarding the Worker’s suitability for the role had crystallised and that a decision had already been reached to terminate the employment relationship during the probationary period prior to the email relied upon by the Worker as constituting what he described as a workplace grievance. On balance, I accept this evidence. In those circumstances, the temporal sequence of events does not support a conclusion that the dismissal decision was prompted by, or connected to, the Worker’s email seeking clarification regarding project allocation.

I further note that the Worker did not invoke the formal grievance procedure available under the employee handbook.

Having regard to the foregoing, I am satisfied that procedures consistent with the principles of fairness contemplated by S.I. No. 146 of 2000 were applied by the Employer, insofar as was appropriate within a probationary employment relationship.

While the termination of employment was undoubtedly disappointing from the Worker’s perspective, I am satisfied that the Employer exercised a contractual entitlement to conclude the employment relationship during probation following an assessment of suitability. The Worker was provided with payment in lieu of notice notwithstanding his short service.

In those circumstances, I am satisfied that the Employer’s decision arose from an assessment of suitability during probation rather than as a consequence of any complaint or protected grievance raised by the Worker.

Mitigation of loss

The Worker submitted screenshots of an email inbox to demonstrate efforts to obtain alternative employment. However, no details were provided identifying prospective employers, positions applied for, dates of applications, or outcomes.

In the absence of verifiable particulars, I am unable to place significant evidential weight on this material as demonstrating meaningful mitigation of loss.

Conclusion

Having regard to all of the foregoing, and having regard to the industrial relations merits of the dispute as a whole, I find no basis upon which to conclude that the Employer acted unfairly or unreasonably in the circumstances and, accordingly, I do not recommend concession of the Worker’s claim.