Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Marketing Manager

Grind School

Representatives

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act

CA-00071583-001

14/05/2025.

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/2020 which said instrument designates the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings pursuant to Section 31 of the Principal Act. The said remote hearing was set up and hosted by an appointed member of the WRC administrative staff. I am satisfied that no party was prejudiced by having this hearing conducted remotely.  I am also satisfied that I was in a position to fully exercise my function, and I made all relevant inquiries in the usual way. 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 14th of May 2025.

The Complainant was not represented and made his own case. I was provided with a final submission on the 7th of May 2025. The Complainant had also sent in two previous emails on the 5th of January 2025 and 19th of March 2025. The Complainant additionally relied on the submission set out in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which read as follows: -

I joined the company as Marketing Manager, with a Social Media Manager reporting directly to me. After a few months, senior management informed me that the Social Media Manager would need to be dismissed. I raised concerns at the time, pointing out that she had no previous experience and should not have been hired and had no training. Despite this, I was told the dismissal needed to proceed and quickly in order to legally protect the company should she choose to pursue legal action.

Following her dismissal, I was responsible for both my role and hers. I created a job description for a Senior Marketing Executive and recommended we hire someone to fill the gap, but despite raising this repeatedly with senior management, no action was taken.

In June, during a performance review, I again highlighted the need for additional support. I was told the CEO’s wife would be joining the team to assist. She attended for one day, after which I was informed that childcare issues would prevent her from continuing- leaving me still solely responsible again. I was also told that a Marketing Director would be hired as the CEO was becoming increasingly involved with a new business group and needed to take a step back from marketing activity.

Having recently overseen the dismissal of the Social Media Manager, I became concerned in January that a similar process was beginning to unfold with myself which I highlighted but was told i has nothing to worry about. When the Marketing Director joined in March, the handover process felt rushed, and again my performance was criticised. I responded to both the CEO and Managing Director in writing, outlining the issues I had been facing to which i never got a reply from both and the following Friday, I was pulled aside and dismissed. (both emails I sent were long and are key to this case as it was my opportunity to document everything discussed throughout the process).

Being familiar with the dismissal process, I noticed that key procedural steps were not followed for example I was not offered the opportunity to have someone present at the meeting, nor was I given a formal chance to appeal the decision after.

As part of the earlier dismissal process for the Social Media Manager, I was asked to identify performance issues that could be used to justify her termination. I now believe a similar approach was taken with me that the decision to dismiss me had been made well in advance due to a personal dislike from senior management against myself. I feel I was retained only until the Marketing Director was in place to allow for a handover of responsibilities. I have been told the marketing director had no knowledge of my dismissal but from the information requested by her in her first week I believe this to be false.

My claim is that the company knowingly dismissed both myself and the Social Media Manager before either of us reached 12 months of service, in order to avoid potential legal obligations. Which had been verbally mentioned to me. Furthermore, my dismissal was structured to appear as a performance-related issue, and the correct dismissal procedures were not followed.

In terms of on boarding and training, there was little to no support provided. This has been acknowledged by the company. I also raised the negative impact this had on my mental health and the stress I experienced, but I received no response to these concerns.

The supplemental documentary evidence provided by the Complainant concerned other Employees and therefore are beyond the remit of this dispute. The evidence adduced by the Complainant was challenged as appropriate by the Respondent/by the Respondent’s Representative.

The Complainant alleges that his dismissal seemingly for poor performance was unfair in circumstances where he was not shown or afforded any procedural fairness.

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.

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 entity was represented by members of its own executive including the Chief Executive Officer (CL) and the Managing Director (COB). I heard from both of these individuals. The Respondent provided me with a written submission on the 15th of May 2025. dated March 2020 and April 2021. A truncated version of this submission reads:

The Complainant has alleged that no performance review meetings took place during his employment. This assertion is denied by the Respondent. Management met with the Complainant on 29 January 2025 and again on 9 April 2025 to address concerns regarding his performance and suitability for the role. Records of these meetings are attached at Appendix 3 and 4.

Furthermore, correspondence issued to the Complainant following these meetings clearly demonstrates that concerns regarding his performance had been raised with him throughout his employment. These emails, attached at Appendix 3 & 4 as above, demonstrates that the Complainant was not meeting the standards expected of a Marketing Manager and was aware of the concerns identified by management.

The Respondent identified several ongoing concerns regarding the Complainant’s performance, including but not limited to poor email campaign performance, issues regarding time management, and concerns regarding the overall quality and effectiveness of work produced….

One particular example of the concerns raised with the complaint relates to a text message campaign issued by the Complainant to an outdated database from the previous academic year. As the Respondent provides grinds to Leaving Certificate students, the recipients contacted were not the appropriate target audience for the campaign. This resulted in a significant and unnecessary expenditure to the Respondent in excess of €1,000.

The Respondent raised this matter with the Complainant and he acknowledged the error, attributing it to poor time management. This incident formed part of the wider pattern of performance concerns discussed with the Complainant and further demonstrated that he was not meeting the standards expected in the role of Marketing Manager.

The claimant raised a concern regarding the level of support available within the marketing function and requested the recruitment of a more junior resource to assist him in his role. The Company carefully considered this request and undertook a review of the structure and performance of the marketing team. Following this review, it was determined that the business required a more senior strategic appointment rather than a junior support role. In light of the underperformance of the marketing function to date, the Company made the decision to recruit a Director of Marketing to provide leadership, direction, and oversight to the department.

The Respondent submits that the Complainant was provided with feedback regarding his performance during the course of his employment and that the decision to terminate his employment was based on genuine performance concerns following review and assessment by management. The decision was not predetermined nor part of any blanket practice regarding employees. Each employee is assessed individually based on their suitability, performance and conduct.

In conclusion, the Company acted reasonably and in line with its operational requirements at all times. The concerns raised by the claimant were considered carefully and reviewed in the context of the wider needs and performance of the business. Decisions taken by the Company were based on legitimate business considerations and were made following an assessment of the structure and  effectiveness of the marketing function. The Company respectfully submits that its actions were fair, reasonable, and proportionate in all of the circumstances and requests that the claim not be upheld.

The Respondent rejects that the dismissal herein was unfair and asserts that the Respondent had to protect its own wider interest which was not being served by the Complainant.

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. I have carefully considered the narratives set out by both sides herein.

At the outset I must state that it is not my function to determine the fairness or unfairness of the dismissal of any employee outside of the Complainant. Anything which was presented concerning third parties has been set aside by me as not pertinent.

The Complainant came to work as a Marketing Manager for the Respondent Grind School in June of 2024. It seems to me that the Complainant came across as a potential good fit for the Respondent institution as he had relevant marketing experience.  As I understand it CL had been handling much of the marketing side of the business up to this point but needed to diversify into other areas and had hoped to step back from marketing as soon as practicable after the arrival of the Complainant.

It is an unfortunate fact that the Respondent entity appears to have been operating for the duration of the Complainant’s employment without the benefit of any Human Resource advice. It is the prerogative of any workplace not to engage such services either in-house or on a Contract basis, but where there is a workforce of up to 85 people this seems, to me, to be a risky strategy.

At the very outset the Contract of Employment read together with the Employee Handbook promised a more rounded approach to issues concerning the performance of an Employee. On literally the first page of the documents the following caught my attention:-

PERFORMANCE AND REVIEW

Our policy is to monitor your work performance on a continuous basis so that we can maximise your strengths and help you to overcome any possible weaknesses. This also gives us the opportunity to receive feedback from our staff. The Company may place you on a Performance Improvement Plan in order to help overcome any weaknesses or build on your strengths.

This is a workplace therefore that provides for the implementation of Performance Improvement Plans but which did at no time devise a PIP or use a PIP to at least allow the Complainant to try and improve his performance.

I understand that the two witnesses for the company gave evidence to me that the Complainant could have been in no doubt that his performance was not at an acceptable level, but I feel that this amounted to something of a projection on their part. They cannot be sure that the Complainant understood his performance was deemed sub-par by them if they did not spell it out for him. There may well have been regular weekly meetings about the marketing strategy, but these were not performance meetings. To my mind there was really only one performance related meeting in the course of this employment, and this was conducted at the end of January 2025. The outcome of this meeting was somewhat open-ended and did not appear to involve a plan of any sort. It certainly did not flag to the Complainant that his performance was now being scrutinised for the purpose of determining whether or not he would be retained as an employee.

It is also worth noting that buried in the Employee Handbook (which said document was not referenced by either party at the hearing or at the time of the dismissal) is the Disciplinary policy which specifically references poor performance: -

DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE

The following disciplinary procedures will apply in matters of discipline, gross misconduct, the constant repetition of minor offences, wilful negligence or unsatisfactory performance or written complaints against employees received through the Grievance Procedure, which are found to be proved against the employee.

In matters of Workplace Incivility, the Company will endeavour to address this informally. The Company reserve the right to use CCTV footage to demonstrate examples of employee behaviour that may constitute Workplace Incivility, where appropriate. Please note, the following disciplinary procedures will apply in matters of discipline where the constant repetition of Workplace Incivility are found to be proved against the employee.

At each stage of the procedure a disciplinary meeting will be held where all the facts will be considered and any mitigating circumstances discussed. All Employees may be accompanied at these meetings, by a fellow colleague of their choice, if he/she wishes. All warnings issued under this procedure will clearly state that the employee will be liable for further disciplinary action should their performance not improve or should there be a further breach of company regulations. In the event of no further misdemeanours occurring and improved performance within the time frame the warning will be removed and the employees file will be cleared.

Other than for an "off the record" informal reprimand, employees have the right to be accompanied by a fellow employee, who may act as a witness or speak on your behalf, at all stages of the formal disciplinary process. However, they are not there to answer questions on your behalf.

All staff will be advised of their right to appeal against any disciplinary action taken.

The following is an outline of the Formal Disciplinary Process:

1. Employees will be made aware of any complaint against him/her; this will be confirmed in writing. Employees will be made aware of and understand any complaint made against them. Therefore, before any disciplinary hearing, the employee must receive in writing, details of their alleged conduct, characteristics or other circumstances, which have led to contemplation of disciplinary action.

2. The employee will be invited to a formal meeting to hear the allegation against him/her. Adequate notice will be given to the employee. Employees should have a minimum of 48 hours’ notice to attend a hearing in order to prepare a defence and organise appropriate representation.

3. Employees may be accompanied by another employee or representative to any stage of the formal process. The employee may, if they wish, be accompanied to each formal stage of the procedure by another appropriate work colleague or representative, in line with the Code of Practice on Grievances and Disciplinary. The person accompanying will not be permitted to answer questions put directly to the employee. The Line Manager conducting the disciplinary hearing will be accompanied by someone else from the Company to take notes and to act as a witness.

4. Employees will be given the opportunity to state their case before any decision is reached. During the hearing the employee will have the opportunity to explain their case fully to the Line Manage and to provide details of any mitigating circumstance they believe to be relevant. The employee’s comments and explanations will be taken into account before any decision is made. Therefore any decision made will take account of the employee’s record and all other relevant factors. If the nature of the alleged action is such that it potentially may amount to gross misconduct, the employee must be informed in the letter that dismissal may be a potential outcome.

5. The Company will give due consideration to the employee’s replies to the allegations set against him/her. Adequate time should be given for consideration of all the facts before issuing any form of disciplinary action. Any decision made will take account of the employee’s record and all other relevant factors. Generally, no employee will be dismissed for a first offence except in cases of gross misconduct.

6. The employee will be invited to a formal determination meeting where employees will be given an explanation of any penalty imposed and will understand the consequences of any further failure to maintain or reach the required standard. Following any disciplinary action, enough time must be allowed for the employee to improve their performance or meet the required standards – except in the cases of gross misconduct. Employees who have a live disciplinary on their file may not be eligible to apply for another role or be considered for promotion, however all decisions in this regard will be made on an individual basis in consultation with the Line Manager.

7. Employees have the right to appeal any disciplinary decision to a higher level Manager. The Line Manager must inform the employee of their decision and the reason for the decision in writing stating the right to appeal to a higher-level Manager within 5 days of receipt of the letter. If an employee does appeal, they must state clearly the reasons for their decision to appeal in their letter.

There can be no doubt therefore that if the two Managers, who appeared before me at the WRC, had taken the time to reference their own Employee handbook they might have understood the nature of the obligation that was on them to act fairly and reasonably in all the circumstances.

The Complainant’s livelihood was on the line, and it was not made clear to him that this was the case. Employees must be made fully aware of any allegations against them (including issues concerning performance which might potentially imperil employment) and must be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to and challenge assertions made.

It is not necessary for me to examine the Complainant’s performance at a granular level. I am quite satisfied that this act of dismissal must be found to be wanting in terms of the procedures adopted to get to that point. The Complainant was given no warning and no opportunity to improve his performance. The Complainant was seemingly summarily dismissed without a letter of dismissal and without a right of appeal to challenge the dismissal.

The Complainant has mitigated his losses, and I note that the Complainant found alternative and better paid employment in August of 2025. Losses accrued for about four months. I accept what the Complainant says about having to dip into savings at this time but am limited in what I can and should do within the four walls of a recommendation under the IR Acts.