LCR23305

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00053975 (CA-00065819).

BACKGROUND:

The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 17 October 2025 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

A Labour Court hearing took place on 10 July 2026.

DECISION:

The matter before the Court is a trade dispute about the termination of the Worker’s employment during his probationary period. The Worker commenced employment on 15 July 2024. The employer terminated his employment on 27 August 2024.

Both the Worker and the Employer attended the Labour Court hearing. The Worker represented himself. The Employer was represented by a barrister, who was instructed by a solicitor.

Worker Position

The Worker submits that his employment ended without warning, without evidence and without any fair procedures. Any meetings with management were held to discuss day-to-day and operational matters. No concerns were ever advised with him about any performance issues. When his employment was terminated abruptly, no reason was given by management. No reason for the dismissal was set out in the termination correspondence.  

Employer Position

The Worker’s employment was subject to an eight-week probation period. The Worker had regular meetings with management to discuss key tasks that he was expected to complete and to address any question raised he had about his role. The Worker’s line manager developed significant concerns about the Worker’s standard of work and attitude to his job. It was clear that he wasn’t fitting into the organisation as envisaged.

Having identified issues with the Worker’s performance during his probationary period, the decision to dismiss the Worker was one that was within a range of reasonable responses for an employer to take in those circumstances. The relevant clause in his contract of employment states that the company “reserves the right to terminate your embayment at any time during or at the conclusion of your probationary period”.

Recommendation

This matter came before the Court as a trade dispute and not as a dispute as regards a potential breach of employment legislation. The appeal before the Court is not a matter of law and the role of the Court in the hearing of industrial relations disputes is to hear the parties and give its opinion on how the matter might best be resolved. 

The Employer relies on Clause 3 of the Probation Policy in place in the employment which states:

“The department manager may judge the employee’s performance to be unsatisfactory beyond redemption with no likely hope of any improvement, or that the performance is too poor to sustain.  In this case the employment relationship will terminate before the end of the probation period.”

The Worker denies that there were any performance issues, while the Employer’s representative submits that the termination of the Worker’s employment should not have been a surprise to him, given the multitude of performance issues raised with him.

The Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the parties.

This Court has consistently held that an employer is not relieved of the obligation to act fairly during a probationary period. The Employer in this case was entitled to terminate the Worker’s employment if it was of the view that the Worker’s performance was not of a satisfactory standard. However, the Court has, on many occasions, emphasised the necessity for an employer to follow fair procedures when a worker is at risk of the loss of employment. From the submissions made, it appears that did not happen in this case. The Worker was not informed that he was at risk of not passing his probationary period. 

Having regard to the circumstances of this case, the Court recommends that the Employer pay to the Worker the sum of €5,666, equivalent to one month’s pay, as compensation in recognition that his dismissal took place without him being afforded the opportunity to respond to the issues relied upon by the Employer to terminate his employer prior to his dismissal.

This sum should be paid in full and final settlement of the matter in dispute.

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Katie Connolly
TH	______________________
16/07/2026	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ms Therese Hickey, Court Secretary.