Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Customer Care

Human Health

Representatives

No Show

No Show

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00074615-001

20/08/2025

This claim is brought under the Industrial Relations Act where the employee alleged that the employment was terminated after they had passed their probationary period. The probation was extended after the 6-month period, arising from what appears to be a customer complaint relating to phone etiquette.  The worker alleges that the employment probation was extended to 11 months and during this period terminated.

In the complaint form the worker stated that:

On 18 July 2025 I received a letter dated 15 July 2025 stating that my probation was extended to the maximum term of eleven months, citing only a general need to “improve conduct” without any specific incidents or guidance. I sought legal advice and was informed that, without any formal communication before the original six-month term expired, I should be regarded as a permanent employee. I relayed this to [to my manager], who undertook to come back to me on the matter. 2 On 15 August 2025[my manager] contacted me to say there was a complaint about my phone etiquette and asked me to meet her at redacted petrol station on 19 August 2025. At that meeting, without any prior investigation, access to the complaint itself, or opportunity to present my side, she informed me that my contract was terminated with immediate effect and collected my access cards. I was given no chance to respond to the allegations or attend any further meeting. I believe this dismissal was unfair and procedurally flawed. I hereby request the assistance of the Work Relation.

The worker consented to email communication and failed to attend.

The employer initially confirmed that they would attend the hearing and then subsequently informed the commission that they would not be attending.

The Terms of Employment (Information) Ac 1994 at 6 D states:

Maximum duration of probationary period

6D.— (1) Subject to this section, where an employee has entered into a contract of employment with an employer which provides for a probationary period, such period shall not exceed 6 months.

(2) The probationary period of a public servant shall not exceed 12 months.

(3) The probationary period referred to in subsection (1) may, on an exceptional basis, be longer where such longer period —

(a) does not exceed 12 months, and

(b) would be in the interest of the employee.

(4) Subject to subsections (3) and (5) where, on the commencement date an employee (other than a public servant) is subject to a probationary period which exceeds 6 months and the employee has completed at least 6 months of his or her probationary period, the probationary period shall expire on the earlier of —

(a) the date on which the probationary period was due to expire, or

(b) the 1st day of February 2023.

This change was required arising from the EU Directive 2019/1152 on Transparent and Predictable Working Conditions.

It would appear that the worker in this case would have a claim to be heard under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 as opposed to a trade dispute. However, this is subject to fair procedures and no surprise to the employer and the mater adjourned if necessary, so that the employer is placed on notice of the appropriate statutory claim which is consistent with the narrative in the complaint form.

In Galway-Mayo Institute of Technology -v- Employment Appeals Tribunal and Others [2007] IEHC 210, Charleton J. of the High Court quashed an EAT decision upholding a complaint under a statutory provision that neither party had sought nor had notice of. In so doing, he set out the approach to be adopted where a statutory remedy is sought either in writing or orally during a hearing:

 “It follows from the foregoing that a judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal is not entitled to invoke a statutory remedy which no one has sought and in respect of which no one is on notice. For the purpose of fulfilling the requirements of natural justice, however, I would have thought that if any such tribunal does have jurisdiction to give a remedy under a particular Act, then if this remedy is sought in an originating document, for instance by ticking a box giving a choice of remedies, or if it is orally sought to in the course of the hearing, such a tribunal is entitled to make a choice in favour of it. If that happens, parties have to be taken as being aware that in the event that a Page 5 of 21 decision goes a particular way the tribunal may look to a remedy claimed. In that regard, I would regard a written claim or an oral assertion seeking a particular remedy as being sufficient for the due administration of constitutional justice provided the tribunal has jurisdiction in respect of it. If remedies are complex, and a tribunal has rules as to notice in the form of simple originating documents, then it should abide by its own procedures or consider the grant of an adjournment to a genuinely surprised party.”

In the High Court Judgement in County Louth VEC -v- Equality Tribunal & Brannigan (2009) IEHC 370, Mr Justice McGovern held:

 “I accept the submission on behalf of the respondent that the Form EE1 was only intended to set out, in broad outline, the nature of the complaint. If it is permissible in court proceedings to amend pleadings, where the justice of the case requires it, then a fortiori, it should be permissible to amend a claim as set out in a form such as the EE1, so long as the general nature of the complaint (in this case, discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation) remains the same.”

Although, held to be obiter by the Supreme Court, these comments are widely regarded as settled law.

The worker failed to attend at the hearing.

The employer failed to attend at the hearing.

The worker consented to email communication and failed to attend at the hearing. I am satisfied that the worker was properly notified of the date and time of the remote hearing. In these circumstances I must determine that the complaint is not well founded and that no recommendation on the merits of the case can be made.

The worker consented to email communication and failed to attend at the hearing. I am satisfied that the worker was properly notified of the date and time of the remote hearing. In these circumstances I must determine that the complaint is not well founded and that no recommendation on the merits of the case can be made.

No Show