Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Assistant Project Manager

A Company

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 - 00004734

15/07/2025

The Worker commenced employment with the Employer on 31 March 2025 as an assistant project manager and his employment terminated on 7 April 2025. He has brought this dispute because he says that he was unfairly dismissed.

The Worker submitted that he accepted an offer of employment as an Assistant Project Manager on 6 March 2025 and commenced employment with the Employer on 31 March 2025. Prior to starting, he completed the required onboarding process, including obtaining a work permit, providing payroll details and receiving information regarding a two-week training programme.

The Worker stated that during his first week he attended induction, onboarding and training sessions and was provided with company equipment and access credentials. He submitted that throughout the first four days of employment no oral or written concerns, warnings or performance issues were raised with him. On 3 April 2025, he was invited to a meeting with his Line Manager and a HR representative. At that meeting, concerns were raised regarding an impression that he appeared frustrated during training and his practice of taking handwritten rather than digital notes. The Worker stated that he denied feeling frustrated, explained that he was pleased to have secured the role and advised that he was using a notebook in the same manner as other trainees. He submitted that no warning was issued and he was instructed to return to training following the meeting.

The Worker described the events of 4 April 2025 as traumatic and distressing. He stated that upon arriving for training he was directed into a meeting room by his Line Manager and instructed to surrender his company laptop, identification badge, access card and training notes. He submitted that no explanation was provided despite his request for one and that he was advised only that HR would contact him. He stated that he was escorted from the premises within a matter of minutes and left feeling shocked and confused. Later that day, he received correspondence inviting him to attend a probation review meeting on 7 April 2025. The accompanying documentation advised that his performance would be discussed and that termination of employment was a potential outcome.

The Worker attended the probation review meeting on 7 April 2025 via Microsoft Teams. He stated that he attended alone, having only worked for four days and not knowing any colleagues personally. He submitted that the meeting lasted approximately fourteen minutes and that termination of his employment was communicated verbally for the first time during that meeting, followed by a termination letter later the same day. According to the Worker, concerns raised at the meeting included allegations that he questioned established processes, appeared frustrated during training, displayed inappropriate body language and had interpersonal difficulties, including alleged incidents of being unkind. The Worker stated that he repeatedly requested specific examples of the alleged unkind behaviour but none were provided. He explained that he is naturally introverted and that his reserved manner should not have been interpreted as poor attitude, disengagement or unprofessional conduct. He further submitted that concerns about his performance were formed prematurely, as he had only completed one full day of process training before the issues were raised.

The Worker also stated that he was deeply upset by the manner in which he was treated on 4 April 2025, which he felt was humiliating and made him feel as though he had been treated like a criminal. He submitted that the reasons outlined in the subsequent termination letter differed from those discussed during the meeting and referred to an inability to align with company culture, frustration with systems and processes and alleged confrontations during training.

The Worker appealed the decision to terminate his employment on 14 April 2025. He stated that an appeal hearing took place on 24 April 2025 and lasted approximately forty minutes. During that hearing he reiterated that he had received no warnings prior to dismissal, that he had successfully completed a number of training exercises and was up to date with his training, and that the allegations of unkind behaviour had never been supported by evidence or specific examples. He also challenged the references made to his body language and maintained that the treatment he experienced on 4 April 2025 was unjustified and disproportionate. The Worker further outlined his academic qualifications and previous professional experience and explained that he had chosen employment with the Employer because of its reputation and culture.

The Worker submitted that although he was advised that the outcome of the appeal would issue within 24 hours, he did not receive a decision until 8 May 2025 after making follow-up enquiries. He stated that the appeal outcome upheld the termination decision, repeated concerns regarding his note-taking practices and alleged confrontational behaviour and advised that no further appeal was available. He contended that the appeal outcome failed to address either the allegation that he had been unkind or the circumstances surrounding the confiscation of his equipment and removal from the workplace on 4 April 2025.

The Worker submitted that he was disappointed with the appeal process and maintained that there was no warning, feedback, improvement plan or meaningful opportunity afforded to him to address any concerns during his short period of employment. He further submitted that no evidence of confrontational behaviour was ever provided to him and that he was not informed what aspects of his body language were considered inappropriate.

In conclusion, the Worker contended that the allegations made against him, particularly the allegation that he was unkind, were unsupported by evidence. He maintained that the manner in which he was removed from the workplace was unjustified and caused him significant distress. The Worker further submitted that he was not given a fair opportunity to respond to concerns or improve his performance and that the appeal process failed to adequately examine his complaints regarding his treatment. He stated that the experience had a significant impact on his confidence and wellbeing and asked that the matter be reviewed on the basis that he was treated unfairly during his probationary period and contrary to the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.

The Employer submitted that the Worker was employed as an Assistant Project Manager from 31 March 2025 until 7 April 2025 and that his employment was subject to a six-month probationary period. Under the terms of his contract, either party could terminate the employment during probation on the provision of one week's notice.

The Employer explained that the Worker participated in a structured onboarding and training programme during his first days of employment. This training was designed to familiarise new employees with the Employer's systems, client processes, ways of working and key tasks associated with the role. The training programme was intended to run for three weeks and involved a group of five new hires.

The Employer submitted that concerns regarding the Worker's performance arose on the third day of training when his manager observed difficulties in his engagement with the training programme. It was asserted that the Worker was not absorbing the training material to the required standard, frequently provided incorrect responses when tested on the content and appeared unable to grasp information being delivered during the sessions. The Employer further contended that the Worker appeared frustrated with the systems and processes being taught and with the level of detailed note-taking required for the role.

According to the Employer, additional concerns arose regarding the Worker’s interactions with others during training. It was submitted that he adopted a confrontational approach towards the trainer on a number of occasions by challenging the accuracy of information being presented. The Employer also maintained that the Worker questioned established methods of working, openly expressed frustration and created discomfort among colleagues. Reference was made to an incident during a team lunch where the Worker allegedly accused colleagues of deliberately taking food items he preferred, which the Employer stated caused discomfort amongst members of the training group.

The Employer stated that, following these observations, the Worker was invited to an informal meeting on 3 April 2025 with his manager and a HR representative. During that meeting, the concerns identified by the manager were discussed, including the Worker’s note-taking approach, presentation during training sessions, expressions of frustration and interactions with colleagues and the trainer. The Employer submitted that the Worker was given an opportunity to respond to these concerns and maintained that he denied being frustrated and stated that he was happy in the role. The Employer further contended that the Worker became defensive and confrontational when challenged about the concerns raised.

The Employer's position was that the Worker demonstrated difficulty accepting or adapting to the Employer’s methods and systems and instead argued in favour of his own preferred approaches. It was submitted that these behaviours caused concern regarding his ability to work effectively with colleagues, adapt to the Employer’s working environment and align with the organisation’s values and expectations.

The Employer stated that, on 4 April 2025, the Worker was invited to attend a probationary review meeting on 7 April 2025 and was advised that his performance would be discussed and that termination of his employment was a possible outcome. He was informed of his entitlement to be accompanied by a work colleague, although he chose not to do so.

At the probation review meeting on 7 April 2025, the Employer submitted that the concerns previously raised were revisited. These included an alleged failure to understand the culture of the account and its methods of working, frustration with company systems and processes and confrontational behaviour during the training programme. The Employer stated that the Worker was again afforded an opportunity to provide his views and explanations.

The Employer submitted that, after considering the Worker's responses, his manager concluded that he had not successfully completed his probationary period. While consideration was given to allowing additional time for improvement, the Employer maintained that there was insufficient indication that the Worker recognised the concerns identified and it was not believed that further training would result in the required improvement in performance or integration into the business. The Employer therefore concluded that the Worker was not a suitable fit for the organisation and terminated his employment in accordance with the probationary provisions of his contract. The Worker received payment in lieu of one week's notice and reimbursement of €1,000 in visa-related costs.

The Employer further submitted that the Worker was afforded a full right of appeal. Following receipt of his appeal on 14 April 2025, an appeal hearing was convened on 24 April 2025 before a senior manager who had not made the original decision. The Worker attended the appeal hearing and was again provided with the opportunity to present his position and any supporting evidence. The Employer stated that the appeal officer reviewed the relevant documentation and consulted with the original decision-maker before concluding that the Worker's employment had become untenable due to issues arising during his probationary period and onboarding training. The appeal was not upheld and the decision to terminate remained in place.

The Employer submits that the Worker’s dismissal was both substantively and procedurally fair and was effected in accordance with the probationary provisions of his contract of employment. It relies on the principle that an employee may be dismissed during a probationary period on grounds relating to capability, competence or suitability for the role, provided the decision falls within the range of reasonable responses open to an employer. The Employer contends that concerns regarding the Worker’s performance, engagement with training, attitude and interactions with colleagues were identified during the onboarding process and were brought to his attention. It further submits that the Worker was afforded opportunities to respond both at a probation review meeting and subsequently through an appeal process. Relying on authorities including Reilly v Bank of Ireland [2015] IEHC 241 and O'Donovan v Over-C Technology Ltd & Anor [2021] IECA 87, the Employer argues that employers retain a broad contractual discretion to terminate employment during probation where concerns arise regarding performance or suitability, and that the courts should not substitute their own judgment for that of the employer where the decision falls within the band of reasonable responses. The Employer therefore maintains that it acted in accordance with the contractual probation clause, followed an appropriate process in the circumstances, and was entitled to conclude that the Worker was not a suitable fit for the organisation.

In conclusion, the Employer submitted that the Worker's performance, attitude and conduct during the onboarding and training process did not meet the standards required for the position. It maintained that concerns were communicated to him, that he was afforded opportunities to respond at both the probation review and appeal stages and that his employment was terminated in accordance with the contractual probationary provisions. The Employer contended that the dismissal arose solely from performance-related concerns identified during probation, denied all allegations of unfair treatment and requested that the claim be rejected in full.

In reaching my recommendation, I have considered all of the written and oral submissions made by the parties together with the supporting documentation furnished.

The employment in this dispute was of a particularly short duration, namely a calendar week, with a start date of Monday 31 March 2025 and a termination meeting on Monday 7 April 2025. The Worker was removed from the workplace on the morning of Friday 4 April 2025 and all company equipment and access was removed from him at that point.

While I recognise that the Worker was employed on probation and that the Employer retained a contractual entitlement to terminate his employment during that period, the question for me is whether the process followed by the Employer to effect that termination was fair in the circumstances. Having considered all of the information provided, I have multiple concerns about the process followed in this case, even in the context of a probationary employment relationship.

In relation to the termination process, I note that on 4 April 2025 the Worker was required to surrender his company equipment and was escorted from the workplace. In practical terms, this conveyed that a decision had already been made regarding his future employment. This occurred before the probation review meeting of 7 April 2025, which was subsequently convened to discuss his performance and the possibility of termination. The invitation to that meeting was sent to the Worker’s personal email address after he had already been removed from the workplace. In those circumstances, I consider that the review meeting afforded the Worker little meaningful opportunity to influence the outcome.

I also have concerns regarding the appeal process. I specifically asked the Employer at the hearing if the interview notes of the other individuals consulted during that process were shared with the Worker. The answer was that they were not. The appeal outcome therefore relied upon information obtained through interviews and communications with other individuals, but the substance of those discussions was not shared with the Worker, and he was not afforded an opportunity to comment upon or challenge that material before the appeal decision was reached. In my view, this represented a significant procedural deficiency.

The Employer submitted that concerns arose regarding the Worker’s conduct and performance during training and that these concerns were informed by feedback received from others involved in the onboarding process. However, the fact that concerns may have been raised by a client or colleagues did not relieve the Employer of the obligation to act fairly. On the information provided, I am not satisfied that the Worker was clearly informed that the concerns regarding his performance were such as to place his continued employment in jeopardy, nor was he afforded a meaningful opportunity to address those concerns. The decision to terminate his employment was made after only four days in the workplace and before the completion of even the initial stages of the planned training programme.

I also do not think that sufficient consideration was given to a less severe response. In particular, communicating clear performance objectives and appropriate feedback, would have afforded the Worker an opportunity to demonstrate whether the concerns identified could be addressed. While the Employer stated that there were no alternative roles available at the time, this does not address the procedural shortcomings surrounding the termination of the Worker’s existing employment.

The communications with the Worker throughout the process fell significantly short of what could reasonably be expected. I accept that he was confused as to why his employment had been terminated so abruptly. Having reviewed the documentation submitted, I do not see any written communication prior to his removal from the workplace clearly advising him that his performance was considered unsatisfactory to such an extent that his probation was in jeopardy or that termination of his employment was being actively contemplated.

While I make no comment on whether the Worker would ultimately have successfully completed his probationary period, I am satisfied that the process by which his employment was terminated was procedurally flawed and did not afford him a fair opportunity to understand, address and respond to the concerns relied upon by the Employer.

The Employer referred to case law affirming the contractual entitlement of an employer to terminate employment during a probationary period, and I acknowledge those authorities. However, this matter is not an employment rights complaint in which I am required to determine whether the termination constituted a breach of a statutory or contractual entitlement. It is a dispute under the Industrial Relations Act 1969 and, in considering what is fair and reasonable in the circumstances, I am guided by the approach adopted by the Labour Court in comparable disputes.

In Hamilton Insurance DAC and A Worker (LCR22710), the Labour Court awarded €10,000 in circumstances where a worker who was dismissed during her probationary period had not been made aware that her employment was at risk or afforded an opportunity to address the performance concerns relied upon by the employer. Of particular relevance is the Court’s statement that:

“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.”

Similarly, in Baxter International Inc. and A Worker (LCR23207), dated 12 January 2026, the Labour Court reiterated that an employer is not relieved of the obligation to act fairly during a probationary period and recommended compensation of €7,500 where the worker had been dismissed without being afforded an opportunity to avail of procedures that would have allowed him to put his case prior to dismissal. It stated in that case:

“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.”

While the Employer's position in the present dispute is that the performance concerns were raised with the Worker, there is an important distinction between informing an employee that aspects of his performance require improvement and making him aware that those concerns are sufficiently serious that his continued employment is at risk. In my view, the Worker was not made aware, before his removal from the workplace, that his probation was in jeopardy or that termination was under active consideration. I also do not accept that he was afforded a realistic opportunity to address and remedy the concerns before the decision to terminate his employment was made.

The fundamental issue, therefore, is not whether the Employer was entitled to form concerns about the Worker’s performance, nor whether it retained a contractual entitlement to terminate his employment during probation. Rather, it is that the Worker was deprived of a fair and meaningful opportunity to address those concerns before the decision to terminate his employment was made. In those circumstances, the initial termination of his employment was procedurally unfair.

While the appeal process provided a potential opportunity to remedy that procedural deficiency, the Worker was not provided with the information relied upon by the decision maker in reaching the appeal outcome. The Worker could not reasonably be expected to respond to concerns or information of which he had not been made aware. In my view, the failure to put that material to the Worker and afford him an opportunity to respond meant that the appeal did not remedy the shortcomings in the original process and was itself procedurally unfair.

Having regard to all of the circumstances, including the very short duration of the employment, and the significant procedural shortcomings identified above, I recommend that the Employer pay the Worker compensation of €10,000 in full and final settlement of this dispute.

Probation – Industrial Relations – termination