LCR23296

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00054580 (CA-00066505-001)

BACKGROUND:

The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 18 August 2025 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

On 12 August 2025 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation. “Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute. I do not recommend in favour of the worker.’’

A Labour Court hearing took place on 02 July 2026.

DECISION:

The Appeal

This is the Worker’s appeal from a Recommendation of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00054580, dated 12 August 2025) under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. Notice of Appeal was received in the Court on 18 August 2025. The Court heard the appeal in Dublin on 2 July 2026.

The Factual Background

The Worker was employed by Ruby Hospitality Ireland Limited T/A Ruby Molly Hotel (‘the Company’) as an Accommodation Supervisor from 8 April 2024 until 2 October 2024, on an annual salary of approximately €32,400.00. Her employment was terminated on the latter date as the Company had determined that the Worker had not successfully completed the probationary period provided for in her contract of employment.

The Worker had a three-month probationary review on 25 July 2024. A document was included in the Company’s papers which the Company submits records the outcome of that review meeting. The document purports to identify several red flags in relation to the Worker’s personal and professional competence. The Worker submits that this document did not come to her attention until the hearing before the Workplace Relations Commission.

It is the Company’s submission that the Worker’s performance did not improve following the first probationary meeting and a second review meeting took place on 2 October 2024 with the Worker’s Team Lead and the Hotel Manager present. The Court was told that a pre-determined decision to dismiss the Worker on performance grounds was communicated to her at that meeting. That decision was confirmed in a pre-prepared letter of dismissal dated 2 October 2024. The Worker was not afforded a right of appeal.

Decision

This matter has come before this Court under the Industrial Relations Act 1969. It is not, therefore, a claim in which the Worker seeks to invoke one or more statutory rights. The within appeal is, by its nature, a trade dispute between a Worker and her former Employer in which the Court, as the court of last resort in industrial relations matters, is required to apply basic principles of fairness to identify a resolution to the parties’ dispute.

Having carefully considered the Parties’ written and oral submissions to it, the Court finds that the process which culminated in the Company’s decision to terminate the Worker’s employment at the conclusion of her probationary period was fatally tainted by a lack of fairness and was devoid of any acceptable procedures. The Court has serious doubts as to whether the Worker ever received, whilst in employment, the document which purports to record the outcome of her three-month probationary review. It is common case that she was never advised at that time, or on any other occasion, that she was seriously at risk of having her employment terminated for underperformance. No performance improvement plan was discussed with her or implemented. The Company representative told the Court that the decision to dismiss the Worker had been made in advance of the six-month probationary review. Finally, the Worker was not afforded a right to appeal that decision.

Having regard to the foregoing, and mindful that it is exercising an industrial relations jurisdiction in this appeal, the Court finds that the Worker’s dismissal was so tainted with procedural irregularity that it can only be described as irredeemably unfair. The Court, therefore, recommends that the Worker receive compensation of six months’ salary from the Company in compensation for the unfairness of her dismissal. The Court measures this at €16,000.00

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Alan Haugh
AR	______________________
08/07/2026	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Mr Aidan Ralph, Court Secretary.