Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Content Moderator

Provider of Recruitment Solutions

Representatives

Mark Comerford                          

Senior Employer Relations 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 - 00006479

05/03/2026

This hearing was conducted in person in the Workplace Relations Commission situate in Lansdowne Road, Dublin. In line with the Supreme Court decision in the constitutional case of Zalewski -v- An Adjudication Officer and the Workplace Relations Commission and Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 (delivered on the 6th of April 2021) the hearing was conducted in recognition of the fact that all formal hearings should be conducted fairly. The hearing was not conducted in public as it concerned a dispute brought under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act of 1969.

Industrial Relations disputes are primarily heard on the basis of factual submissions provided by the respective parties. Relevant parties might be invited to give an oral recollection of events, facts and matters within their knowledge. Testimony may be subject to rebuttal by witnesses or other relevant contradicting evidence provided by the other side.

The specific details of the dispute are outlined in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which was received by the WRC on the 5th of March 2026.

The Complainant was not represented and provided his own account of the facts of the dispute that has brought these parties together before the WRC. The Complainant came alone.

The Complainant provided supporting documents when he first issued his complaint form. The Complaint Form is dated the   day of    2026. The Complainant provided further documentation in the run up to the hearing date.

The Complainant alleges that he has been treated most egregiously by the Employer herein in the manner of his initial engagement and his subsequent ejection. The complaint form reads:

NATURE OF DISPUTE: REFERRAL UNDER SECTION 20 OF THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969

1. SUMMARY OF CLAIM:

I was summarily dismissed on 27 February 2026, on only my 9th day of employment. I joined CC in good faith, having resigned from a secure professional role with a high international reputation to accept this position.

2. PROCEDURAL UNFAIRNESS & IMPOSSIBLE STANDARDS:

The sole reason given for my dismissal was an 80/100 score on a policy assessment. The employer mandated an arbitrary 90% pass rate. Crucially, the employer prohibited me from taking study materials home for revision, making it logically impossible to reach the 90% target. I was denied any second attempt, remediation, or the "fair procedures" required under Irish Code of Practice, even during probation.

3. PUBLIC HUMILIATION & BREACH OF DIGNITY:

The dismissal was conducted in a public reception area. My security badge was confiscated loudly in front of other staff and security personnel. This "public ceremony of dismissal" was unnecessary and caused me significant psychiatric distress and public humiliation.

4. FAILURE TO ENGAGE:

I attempted to resolve this through formal grievances sent to the Director and the CEO of CC Resources. Despite evidence that these were received (including LinkedIn activity), the company ignored my professional outreach, forcing this referral to the WRC.

5. RELIEF SOUGHT (PRIMARY): REINSTATEMENT

I am primarily seeking Reinstatement to my position as Persian AI Annotator. My score of 80/100 demonstrates my high capability. I believe my dismissal was a procedural error that should be rectified immediately.

6. ALTERNATIVE REDRESS:

If reinstatement is not feasible, I seek:

Financial Compensation for loss of earnings and detrimental reliance (loss of my previous secure role).

Aggravated Damages for the humiliating manner of my public dismissal.

Rectification of Record to reflect a neutral departure to protect my career.

Where it also became necessary, I explained how the Adjudication process operated with particular emphasis on the burden of proof which had to be attained by the Complainant in the first instance. The Complainant must establish facts which tend to disclose that there is a reasonable cause of action or that there appears to have been a contravention of a Statute or Statutes.

Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute.

The Respondent was represented by it’s own HR Personnel.

The Respondent provided me with a comprehensive written submission received by the WRC on the 8th of July 2026.

The Respondent rejects that there has been an unfair dismissal or that it acted other than in accordance with the very clear guidelines set out to the Complainant before he was engaged by the Respondent.

Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute.

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

As I understand it the Complainant applied for a job as a content moderator and/or an AI Annotator with the Respondent company though his talents were ultimately to be placed with a third-party client of the Complainant’s. I understand that a content moderator is a person who reviews and manages user-generated content on websites, social media platforms, forums, online marketplaces, gaming platforms, and other digital services to ensure it complies with community guidelines, company policies, and legal requirements. In undertaking this role, the Complainant’s skills in Persian (Farsi) was a key requirement.

I fully accept that the Contract of Employment sets out the arrangements under which the Complainant could expect to commence his employment. In particular it was envisaged that there would be an initial period of comprehensive training given to this new recruit. Minimum scores would have to be achieved to progress through the probation period. I would suggest that the Contract indicates that this training is intended to operate in the initial weeks of the six-month probation period. Para 4.4. reads as follows:

This section of the Contract of Employment must be read in conjunction with the shorter Starter Training Agreement signed by the Complainant on the commencement of his employment wherein at paragraph 5 the following is stated:

The Complainant commenced his employment on Monday the 16th of February 2026. One week later on Monday the 23rd of February 2026 the Complainant was tested on the information that had been explained to him in his first week. The Complainant failed the test achieving an 80% score where the requirement was a 90% score minimum.

By the Friday 27th of February the Complainant was being escorted off the premises by HR personnel having (on re-assessment) failed to once again achieve the 90% expected of him.

The Respondent has made the case that it is within its rights to terminate the employment where the Complainant was fully on notice of what was expected of him and had signed the Starter Training Agreement aforementioned. For the Respondent this was a Contractually binding agreement, and the Complainant had failed to keep his end up.

For the Respondent, it was the Complainant's own shortcomings that triggered the dismissal. However, the Employer did not, in my view, demonstrate adherence to its stated objective, as set out in the Starter Training Agreement:

"Our goal is to help every Employee succeed, and we are committed to providing the resources and support needed during this Training period."

Significantly, no witness for the Respondent offered any explanation as to why it was considered reasonable to commence what was effectively a process of elimination after only one week in the role. Nothing in either the Contract of Employment or the Training Agreement suggested that an employee's continued employment would be determined after five days. The language used referred to the "initial weeks" of training, not the initial days.

It is also noteworthy that neither the Complainant's Manager/Advisor nor any Supervisor gave evidence regarding the Complainant's performance in the workplace. No witness explained how or why the Complainant fell approximately 10% short of the threshold required to progress beyond the first assessment stage.

Equally, the Recruitment Specialist who obtained the Complainant's signature on the Training Agreement did not give evidence that the Complainant was made fully aware of, or understood, the level of risk associated with leaving secure employment to take up a position from which he could be removed after little more than a week.

No evidence was presented to satisfy me that the Respondent took reasonable care to ensure that prospective candidates had a realistic opportunity of successfully completing the training and probationary process. In my view, an employer recruiting an individual into employment owes a degree of responsibility in this regard. To recruit a person, induce them to commence employment, and then terminate that employment within little more than a week strikes me as exceptionally abrupt and unforgiving.

The Respondent's HR Manager appeared genuinely surprised when I described the process as "brutal". Having considered all of the evidence, I remain satisfied that this description is warranted.

In his evidence the Complainant suggested that he is precluded from working for any company working for the same Third-party client that the Respondent engaged him to work for. It is difficult to know if this is correct.

Recommendation:

Investigation Recommendation Reference:  IR - SC – 00006479

As noted, Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act of 1969 empowers me to make a recommendation or recommendations to disputing parties and on foot of any investigation so conducted. In making such recommendations I am obliged to set out my opinion on the merits of the dispute and the positions taken by the parties thereto.

I am recommending that the Respondent does pay to the Complainant a compensatory lump sum of money in the amount of €3,000.00.