Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

An Employer

Representatives

Self-Represented

The Employer did not attend and was not represented at hearing. 

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00075113-001

03/09/2025

This matter came before the WRC dated 03/09/2025 as a complaint seeking adjudication by the WRC under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

The specific complaint falls under Unfair Dismissal.   The Worker claims he was unfairly dismissed, and he does not have at least 12 months service.  The aforesaid dispute was referred to me for investigation.  A hearing for that purpose was scheduled to take place on 04/06/2026. 

The background to this dispute relates to a dismissal during a probationary period. 

The Worker was employed as a Maintenance Technician.   The Worker was paid €845.00 gross weekly for which he worked 40 hours. 

The Employer is a company engaged in asset management. 

The Worker submits that his dismissal was pre-meditated and unfair and did not align with established employment protocol.  The Worker submits he was dismissed in retaliation after he made a complaint of bullying. 

The Employer on 16/10/2025 confirmed there was no objection to an investigation of this dispute by an Adjudication Officer in accordance with WRC procedures. 

The Employer did not attend at hearing on 04/06/2026. 

The Employer emailed objections@workplacerelations.ie on 02/06/2026 to advise they would not be attending the adjudication hearing having previously confirmed there was no objection to an investigation of this dispute.  The aforesaid email address is that which is utilised by parties wishing to object to the mode of hearing notified to them by the WRC i.e., remote hearing vis a vis in person hearing.    

The Worker filed submissions and supporting documentation comprising numerous screenshots in advance of hearing.  The Worker filed a comprehensive written submission.  Upon enquiry the Worker acknowledged this was an AI assisted document.  Much of the narrative in the aforesaid document refers to matters that are outside the scope of this dispute as presented under the impleaded legislation namely section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act (1969) as amended.   

Accordingly, that which is relevant to this dispute as presented is summarised below under the heading Summary of Worker’s Case.

(directly from the Worker’s submission)

From the beginning of the contract, the Complainant was subjected to a hostile work environment orchestrated by the Senior Manager and the Secretary.

Intrusive Monitoring: The manager engaged in persistent and intrusive monitoring (micromanagement), including tracking the Complainant’s movements and contacting him on his private number during unpaid rest breaks.

Conflicting Instructions: The Complainant was frequently given contradictory orders designed to undermine his professional competence. This pattern is evidenced by a log of 29 screenshots.

Manager was entering the apartments suddenly, without knocking on the door or warning, trying to catch the Complainant doing something wrong, and always treated the Complainant differently from others.

8 May 2025 – Formal Notification to HR: The Complainant submitted a formal complaint to HR and the Asset Manager reporting threats and hostile behavior. The Respondent acknowledged the issue and confirmed the implementation of "interim steps" to ensure a supportive work environment. 

13 of May 2025 - Everything was explained to (HR) and the Asset Manager in the meeting, in details about the occurred events.

15 May 2025 – Informal Mediation: Facilitated by HR, a meeting was held between the Complainant, the Asset Manager, and the manager to clarify facts and seek to restore a functional working relationship.

19 & 20 May 2025 – Follow-up: HR contacted the Complainant to monitor the situation post-mediation, reaffirming the commitment to ensure all employees were treated with dignity and respect.

28 of May 2025 – Email about manager’s departure, [REDACTED] announced the departure of the manager and his last day would be 20th of June 2025.

Retaliation from Secretary:  After the manager’s departure, The Complainant reported his fear of retaliation from the secretary on the mediation meeting, who was the manager’s friend to the asset manager. 

The asset manager said that would not happen, they were just working together. 

After the manager’s departure, the secretary’s actions confirmed these fears, as she continued the same patterns of harassment as the manager.

After the manager’s departure, the Respondent overloaded the Complainant, giving him three times more work than he could handle.  During the Complainant's last month, the workload was intentionally increased to create a pretext for poor performance. 

The Respondent then began to raise vague concerns about the Complainant's performance, which had never been mentioned previously. 

Probation Review Meeting (17 of July): A probation review meeting was scheduled with HR where vague concerns about the Complainant performance were raised. Formal Response (20 of July): In response to the meeting, The Complainant sent a detailed email on Sunday, refuting the accusations and attaching 34 screenshots as evidence of the abusive behavior (off-hours calls, incorrect tasks, etc.).

Dismissal (21 of July): The next day, the company dismissed the Complainant via a letter, citing "an overall assessment of your performance, conduct, and suitability for the role," but explicitly acknowledging that his feedback about the "stressful experience" was considered. 

Continuous Reporting and Retaliation: It is important to note that the Complainant had been reporting the Manager’s abusive behavior and the hostile work environment since 8th May 2025. However, following the biased probation meeting on 17th July, the Complainant submitted a formal response on 20th July, providing 34 screenshots as undeniable evidence of the harassment. The Respondent’s decision to dismiss the Complainant less than 24 hours after receiving this formal documentation proves that the termination was a strategic move to suppress his grievance and retaliate against him for finally providing material evidence of the abuse.

Constant Off-Hours Calls: Calls during lunch breaks and after working hours, which violates the right to a break and invades personal life. (Proof: Multiple screenshots of calls from [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] on different days).

Poorly Instructed Tasks: Requesting tasks (like changing batteries) with little time before the end of the day and providing incorrect instructions (like wrong apartment numbers). (Proof: Screenshots of messages showing incorrect instructions and late hours). 

Lack of Prior Performance Concerns: It is highly significant that during the first three months of employment (February to May), the Respondent never issued any formal verbal or written warnings regarding the Complainant's performance. No Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) was ever suggested. The alleged 'poor performance' only surfaced as a formal concern after the Complainant secured the company vehicle on 8th May and began reporting the abusive behavior of the Manager. This sudden shift in the Respondent's assessment, following 94 days of silence, further proves that the performance claims were a fabricated pretext for retaliation. 

The Damage Caused (Personal Impact)

• Psychological Harm: The harassment and dismissal caused severe stress, nightmares during sleep, severe anxiety, and a feeling of "burnout."

 • The Complainant was despised, and his moral and professional values were diminished. The Respondent failed to provide a safe work environment and instead chose to penalise the Complainant for speaking up.

• Hostile Work Environment: The managers' actions created an environment that was "neither healthy nor conducive to professional development."

The Worker at hearing outlines he worked in an apartment complex comprising 480 apartments.  He submits his manager was calling him at lunch and he was scheduling deliveries while he was at his lunch.  

Internal Complaint

The Worker made a complaint to HR and to the asset manager on 8 May 2025 by email in which he set out his grievances.  The Worker emailed that he felt that what happened to him that afternoon when he returned to work with the company vehicle went beyond what he considers acceptable where he felt disrespected and threatened by his manager during a ‘private conversation’.  

The Worker emails that the way he was spoken to by his manager in a rude and arrogant manner creating a psychologically hostile environment.  The Worker submits his manager claimed he was not working hard enough which the Worker truly doesn’t understand. 

The Worker emails he has been painting between 2 and 3 apartments per week while also handling tenants’ maintenance tickets and changing door batteries daily and he walked over 10,000 steps yesterday which he emails he showed to the asset manager.  The Worker emailed his manager suddenly appears sneaking in without making any noise almost as if he’s trying to catch him doing something wrong or scare him. 

The Worker emailed this behaviour is completely inappropriate and feels abusive.  The Worker emailed his manager speaks in Lithuanian in front of him with the security staff and it makes him feel like they are talking about him and its extremely uncomfortable and embarrassing.  The Worker emailed that his manager has always treated him differently from other colleagues unfriendly and harsh and he doesn’t understand why. 

The Worker emailed he has worked for many companies here in Dublin and he’s never been treated like this and its not the behaviour he expects from a senior manager.  The Worker emailed that after his meeting with his manager today he is feeling completely demoralised throughout and left feeling the worst person in the world.  The Worker emailed that he is writing this internal complaint feeling sad and unsafe and he believes that if he doesn’t speak up he will be unfairly punished.

The Worker submits HR replied to him on 12th May and mediation was arranged within a week.  The Worker submits 20 days after the mediation his manager left the company. 

The Worker submits that after his manager left the secretary started to cross the line and to be disrespectful.  The Worker submits that the secretary and her colleague set traps for him and they tried to set him up. 

Probation Review Meetings

The first review meeting was with the asset manager after 60 days and the Worker upon enquiry submits he did not make any complaint about his manager and he felt threatened disrespected and humiliated by him.

The Worker submits the second probation meeting took place on 17th July after which he was dismissed on 21st July.  Upon enquiry the Worker submits he was never told his job was in jeopardy / at risk.   The Worker submits he was doing the job of two or more people and there were never any performance issues brought to his attention. 

The Worker submits he was surprised to get dismissed after he emailed his response to the review meeting with all the screenshot attachments.  The Worker submits he was expecting retaliation as they would see him as a menace.

The Employer did not attend and was not represented at hearing. 

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions and documentation filed by the Worker.

Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the dispute and in fulfilment of my duties under statute. 

Chronological Timeline

3rd February 2025 commenced employment with the Employer

1st probation review meeting early April – there is no definitive date on which this meeting took place.  The Worker did not recall this review at all initially.  Upon enquiry, following prompting by his partner, he recalls a review did place 60 days after the commencement of his employment when reminded by his partner that he had been told he would get a salary increase when he passed his probation at this first review. 

It would seem there was no paperwork / emails generated in regard to the first probation review or if there was no such paperwork was presented. 

8th May complaint submitted by the Worker details of which are set out above under Worker’s Case

9th May response from the Employer

15th May informal mediation facilitated

19th & 20th May informal mediation check in emails

17th July probation review meeting

21st July termination letter

It is generally understood that the purpose of a probationary period at the commencement of employment is to provide an opportunity to monitor an employee’s suitability for the role and to address any performance related issues.  It allows an employer to review the progress of a new entrant in the day-to-day operations of the employer’s business.  To this end there is an obligation on an employer to ensure a structured approach to an employee’s probation period and performance should be managed and assessed in such a manner as to provide for a performance improvement plan with clear goals and reviews if and when an employee’s performance is found to be not meeting the required standard. 

Probation reviews should be conducted during the probation period in order to offer feedback on the various aspects of the employee’s performance and to highlight areas where improvement is required.  An employer should explain to an employee that they may be at risk of failing their probation if their performance does not meet the required standard.   At a minimum an employer must alert an employee to any issues and inform him/her of the consequence of termination of employment if the required improvement is not achieved. 

Notwithstanding, the success or failure of a worker’s period of probation is entirely a matter for an employer to determine.  I am not required to determine whether the Worker should have been dismissed during the probationary period or not as the case may be.  It is not my function to substitute my view for that of a respondent employer.   My role is limited to an examination of the manner in which the termination of employment was undertaken by an employer.  

I note that whilst a worker with less than 12 months service does not enjoy the protections of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, the fact that a worker is on probation does not negate or obviate their entitlement to fair procedures. 

In this I am mindful of the recommendation of the Labour Court in Beechside Company Limited T/A Park Hotel Kenmare LCR21798 that provides as follows:

“Where an employee is considered unsuitable for permanent employment, the Court accepts that an employer has the right, during a probationary period, to decide not to retain that employee in employment.  However, the Court takes the view that this can only be carried out where the employer adheres strictly to fair procedures.” 

The consideration of a trade dispute and any recommendation thereto is informed and guided by previous decisions of the Labour Court as they apply to a trade dispute under the Industrial Relations Act. 

In Hamilton Insurance Dac v. A Worker LCR22710 in January 2023 the Labour Court held as follows:

“There is no submission before the Court that the worker was notified in advance of her termination that her employment was at risk.  Neither was there a submission before the Court which contended any procedure was followed before arriving at a decision to terminate the employment or that an opportunity was provided to the worker to know of any issues prior to the termination of her employment.  Similarly, there is no submission before the Court that she was afforded any opportunity to defend herself against any charge or contention which could lead to the termination of her employment.

It is the view of the Court that whenever a worker, including a worker who is on probation, is at the risk of his or her job, it is incumbent on the employer to make the worker aware of the situation and of the reasons.  In addition, where the issue arises from the conduct or performance of the worker, he or she should be afforded an opportunity to address the decision maker in his or her defence. 

There is no submission before the Court that these basic elements of fair procedures were applied in the case of the worker…”  

I note the Labour Court in Baxter International Inc v A Worker LCR 23207 held as follows:

“Based on the uncontested submission of the Worker, the Court concludes that the worker was dismissed from his employment without the application of any fair process or procedures. This Court has consistently held that an employer is not relieved of the obligation to act fairly during a probationary period.”

I have regard also to the recommendation of the Labour Court in C&W O'BrienArchitects v A Worker LCR22391 wherethe Court took into account the provisions of the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures (S.I. 146 of 2000) which, in the words of the Court:

“emphasises the importance of ensuring that an employee is aware of any disciplinary procedure which is initiated in respect of her and to know any case being made against her and to have a fair opportunity to respond to any such case. The Code also emphasises the importance of the availability of an internal mechanism wherein a sanction which has been imposed can be appealed.”

The Code of Practice emphasises that good practice entails a number of stages in the discipline and grievance process and states at section 6 as follows:

“6.  The procedures for dealing with such issues reflecting the varying circumstances of enterprises/organisations, must comply with the general principles of natural justice and fair procedures which include:

·        That employee grievances are fairly examined and processed.

·        That details of any allegations or complaints are put to the employee concerned.

·        That the employee concerned is given the opportunity to respond fully to any such allegations or complaints.

·        That the employee concerned is given the opportunity to avail of the right to be represented during the procedure.

·        That the employee concerned has the right to a fair and impartial determination of the issues concerned, taking into account any representations made by, or on behalf of, the employee and any other relevant or appropriate evidence, factors, circumstances.” 

Under General Principles at section 4 the Code states as follows:

“The essential elements of any procedures for dealing with grievance and disciplinary issues are that they be rational and fair, that the basis for disciplinary action is clear, that the range of penalties that can be imposed are well-defined and that an internal appeal mechanism is available.” 

In eBay v. A Worker LCR22806 the Labour Court held as follows:

“The Court has carefully considered the written and verbal submissions it received.  The Court is satisfied on the submissions before it that the Employer failed to adhere to the requirements of the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures made under Section 42 of the Industrial Relations Act 1990 and contained in SI 146 of 2000, before the decision to dismiss the claimant was taken.

The Court has consistently held that an employer is not relieved of the obligation to act fairly during the probationary period and that the requirement of the Code of Practice applies in all circumstances in which a worker is on hazard of having his or her employment terminated. [emphasis added]

The Complainant at hearing maintains that no performance issues were ever brought to his attention during his employment with the Employer.    

However, I note by his own account in his email of complaint of 8th May to the Employer, the Worker writes that his manager, in the conversation that triggered his complaint, told him that he was not working hard enough and the Worker claims his manager repeatedly pointed out that he was on probation. 

If this conversation was intended to be a probation review meeting it would appear that no paperwork / email issued from the Employer arising therefrom.  The only email appeared to have been the Worker’s email of complaint subsequent to the conversation. 

I note also by his own admission in his response to the July review meeting, the Worker submits his manager was ‘accusing me lots of time for not being a flexible worker…the word used it was that I was not flexible.’

I note also a text exchange between the parties on 8th May prior to the conversation that took place between the Worker and his manager as follows which the Worker perceived as a threat:

From the Worker

“that’s on the bag I didn’t have on my bag Battery bag screwdriver”

From the Worker’s line manager

“this is the reason I wanted you to do all the repairs in the morning because you had to pick up the van later in the afternoon.  Something not working out here [redacted]. We will discuss this later. 

When I consider the foregoing I am satisfied there were performance issues raised with the Worker albeit he did not appear to perceive them as such. 

I note that during the tenure of his employment the Worker submits he received numerous phone calls during his lunch time and he maintains this constitutes control of his lunch time.  I note from the numerous screenshots presented the times of the calls were wide ranging and varied from between 11.43 to 13.20.       

I note from the screenshots that many of the calls remained unanswered but the Worker is very much aggrieved nonetheless.  The Worker is also aggrieved by receiving texts during his lunch time regarding jobs that required to be undertaken during his working day.    

I note the Worker’s complaint filed by him to the Employer on 8th  May triggered an immediate response and I set out as follows the content of one of the emails:

“Thank you again for bringing your concerns to our attention.  I am back in the office now and will begin reviewing the matter.  I will need to speak with yourself in person to gather more information and will be on site tomorrow morning around 9am to meet.

Please be assured this is being taken seriously and will be handled in line with our internal procedures.” 

I note the Worker and his colleague against whom allegations had been made were both open to informal mediation facilitated by HR and this was conducted without delay on 15th May following on from a meeting between the Worker, HR and the asset manager which took place on 13th May.   

I note on 19th May the Employer emailed the Worker to check in on how he was doing after the informal mediation and advising him that if he has remembered something he didn’t mention at the time to please feel free to let them know.   I note the Worker replied thanking the Employer for all the support and for ‘conducting all this awkward situation with your professional approach.’

I am unable to fault the manner in which the Employer dealt with the Worker’s complaint and it would appear that the Worker too was satisfied with the outcome and he was made aware the door was open to him if he had any further issues.  I note the Worker seemed to accept at that time that the maters raised had been resolved.    

In any event the Worker’s manager against whom allegations had been made in the complaint of 8th May left the company on 20th June.

Central to the Worker’s sense of grievance appears to be the view he holds that his manager left the company because he (the Worker) made a complaint about him. 

I note the Worker appears to hold the view that when his manager left the company he was held responsible for this in some way by his colleagues because he had raised a complaint against his manager.    

It was difficult to ascertain why this would have been a belief held by the Worker as his manager seems to have simply moved on to new employment some 7 weeks after the Worker filed his complaint.  Nonetheless, the Worker formed the belief he would be harassed by the secretary because he believed his manager was her friend. 

The Worker maintains the secretary retaliated by sending him texts outside of working hours.  To this end I note there is one text that was sent at 22.45 as follows:

“Hi sorry for the hour, I don’t want to forget to ask you to file the floor of D-014”

The Worker maintains the secretary provided him with incorrect cell phone numbers and apartment numbers and gave him incorrect instructions and provides screenshot examples.  I note there was one example provided of each allegation.  

The Worker does not accept these could be genuine mistakes and maintains they are deliberate conflicting instructions and ‘tricks.’

I note a probation review meeting took place on 17th July which generate paperwork and follow up as follows:

“Thank you for taking the time today to review your probationary period. 

As discussed we covered several areas of concern that have been raised during your probation, including:

·        Instances of entering properties without proper tenant notification,

·        Reluctance or delays in completing tasks when requested,

·        And general concerns around engagement and performance expectations.

This meeting was intended to give you the opportunity to respond and to reflect on your progress during the probationary period. 

We will be reviewing the discussion internally and will be in touch with you again tomorrow regarding the outcome. 

If you have anything further you’d like to add or clarify following the meeting, feel free to reach out today.”

I note the Worker emailed the following response:

“Thanks for our meeting.

About the instances of entering properties without proper tenant notification, it happened very few times, I believe one or two.  I have some screenshots in attached proving that [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] were sending me to wrong numbers apartments sometimes.

About reluctance or delays in completing tasks when requested, I have as well some screenshots in attached proving that [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] were asking me to do some jobs 20 minutes, 10 minutes sometimes 5 minutes before I finish my work, and just to clarify to change a battery for example takes an average of 40 minutes to be changed which means that could be less or more, it depends on the software process.  From the time to get the bag until the time to deliver the bag’s the average is 40 minutes. 

[REDACTED] was accusing me lots of times for not being a flexible worker because I didn’t want to work after 16pm, the word used was that I was not flexible.  What its not true, once a while is ok, but a lot of times its not.  Let’s remember that on my contract it says that I won’t be paid for doing work after my shift. 

And general concerns engagement and performance expectations, I find this point to be vague and lacking in specific examples, making it difficult to address effectively.

On the meeting you mentioned that was not professional from my side to lay down on the couch of an empty apartment during my lunch time.  It is not written on the companies or procedures of the company this statement and no one mentioned this before.  [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] saw me already lay down on the couch during my lunch break a lot of times and they never complained before.  It is notable that this concern has been raised only recently, despite previous instances of me resting in similar circumstances during my lunch break. 

On our meeting as well you mentioned that it is not acceptable that I misunderstood a very fast chat with [REDACTED] on the phone, where he asked me to put a cone on the hole and I misunderstood so I put a stone on the hole.  Cone and stone are very similar words if said very fast.

We are from other nationalities, you as immigrant as me, you know that misunderstanding of communication is something very common that can happen, I’m not perfect, sometimes a small misunderstanding can happen with everyone.

Attached are 34 screenshots of unprofessional and abusive behaviours, some tricks coming from [REDACTED] and [REDACTED], calling during my lunch time, calling after work times, wrong number apartments to paint and to change batteries etc.. I may have inadvertently omitted some details, as I have experienced numerous challenging situations.  But its everything registered and saved on my work company’s cell phone for you to check if you want. 

After [REDACTED] left the company I raised my concerns to [REDACTED] about [REDACTED], that probably I would receive retaliation from her side because they were work friends. [REDACTED] said to me this would not happen because they were just working together.  [REDACTED] is now doing the same patterns and abusive behaviours that [REDACTED] had in the past, but now she is trying to do less perceptive. 

These behaviours have created an environment that is neither healthy nor conducive to professional development, and they have significantly impacted my well-being and my productivity. 

I’m having to write this email on a Sunday, the day where I had to be resting after a long and hard week of work.  I’m feeling very anxious, getting mentally sick, overstressed and having burning out. After I’ve passing trough this all these months.

Despite passing and suffering all these situations, my duties being done completely daily, without delay, where you can check the HG repairs that’s our Teams group, where I send all my duties that had been done.

My intentions on my reports of bullying and my raising of concerns it was never to punish someone, its just to explain myself, try to work in peace, have some dignity and search for justice.”

The Worker’s employment was terminated as follow on 21st July:

Following your probation review meeting and your written response, I am writing to formally confirm the decision to terminate your employment with [REDACTED] effective today, 21st July 2025.

We acknowledge the feedback you shared and recognise that this has been a stressful experience for you. Your comments have been considered fully as part of the review process.

However, as discussed, the decision has been made based on an overall assessment of your performance, conduct, and suitability for the role. Despite prior feedback and the opportunity to improve, we do not believe the role is the right fit, and we are proceeding with ending your employment in line with the probation terms set out in your contract.

In accordance with your contract of employment, you will receive one week’s notice pay in lieu. Your final payslip will include:

• One week's notice pay

• Payment for any accrued but unused annual leave .

Your final payroll documents will be issued on next week’s payroll run (30th July). Please ensure any remaining company property is returned to your manager including keys, phone, van, tools.

We would like to thank you for your time with [REDACTED] and wish you the best in your future career.

Having considered in detail all the information shared by the Worker it is difficult to escape the conclusion that he had absolutely no clue that his performance was not up to the required standard because nobody seemed to have sat him down and had a forthright conversation with him about the requirements of his role and in particular about the requirement for flexibility as set out in his contract as follows in para 3.2.   

Hours of Work

Your normal working week will be 40 hours plus such other reasonable hours as are necessary to fulfil your duties to [REDACTED’S] satisfaction.  Your 40 hour working week is exclusive of your lunch break of 60 minutes, referred to at 3.4 below.  [REDACTED] reserves the right to change your working hours or to require you to work other shifts without changing the total hours to be worked, provided that before implementing any changes [REDACTED] will consult with you and consider any reasonable objections which you may have to the proposed changes.  In unusual and limited circumstances you may be required to work on public holidays and/or at weekends (including Sundays). These arrangements are subject to all relevant legal requirements, including, but not limited to the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997, and are designed to ensure effective delivery to our customers. 

3.2 In order to ensure that [REDACTED] delivers the required high level of service which customers demand, [REDACTED] requires flexibility from its employees with regards to hours of work, in accordance to paragraph 3.1. [emphasis added] 

3.3 You are not eligible for payment in respect of overtime.

3.4 Your breaks will be granted in accordance with the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997. You will be entitled to a 60-minute lunch break on each day that you work to be taken at a time mutually agreed with your manager.  [REDACTED] reserves the right to change the timing and length of this break at any time at its discretion. You must ensure that you take your lunch break and inform your manager if you do not receive your lunch break.

Furthermore, I have heard no indication that the Worker was told at any time that his job was at risk.   There should have been frank and honest conversations with the Worker at frequent intervals during his probationary period.  At a very minimum, the contractual flexibility requirement of the role and what this might look like in practice should have been clearly set out to the Worker.  An objective consideration of the nature of the role indicates that it is one in which flexibility is required and accordingly the contract of employment sets out this requirement.          

I am unable to find there was a structured approach to the management of his probation.  I am not satisfied that the Worker’s probation was pro-actively managed.    

The Worker appeared to be completely oblivious that there were performance deficits.  I note there seemed to be no sense or understanding at all on his part that his performance might be lacking in any respect.  

Moreover, he appeared to be completely oblivious to the fact that such deficits if not addressed by him could mean that his job was at risk and that termination could follow. 

The termination letter would seem to suggest that this was a situation of the wrong person for the job where it provides as follows: “we do not believe the role is the right fit.”  While this may well be the case I note the Employer interviewed the Worker, and he was selected for the job and hired arising out of said interview by the Employer and subsequently he was dismissed during his probation without ever seeming to understand there were deficits in his performance as they had never been highlighted in a formal manner to him and in a manner which was clearly understood by him.

It is not my role to even attempt to speculate on what was discussed during an interview that led to a job offer to a candidate that did not seem to have an understanding of what the job entailed.   

My role is limited to an examination of the manner in which the termination of employment was undertaken by an employer. 

I am unable to find that it was ever explained, in simple straightforward terms, to the Worker that he may be at risk of failing his probation if his performance did not meet the required standard. 

I can only conclude that it was unreasonable and unfair of the Employer to terminate the Worker’s employment in the manner in which this termination was executed without any warning or any right to appeal.    

Furthermore, I have regard to the Employer’s probationary provisions as follows:

1. Date of Commencement

1.1 Your employment with [REDACTED] will begin on 3rd February, 2025, though this can be amended by agreement between both you and [REDACTED.  In addition, your commencement date is subject to [REDACTED] receiving satisfactory results to the background checks carried out. Until these checks are successfully completed, your employment will not commence with [REDACTED]. 

1.2 This employment is not continuous with any previous period of employment.

1.3 Your contract of employment is subject to a six month probationary period which commences on your first day of employment with [REDACTED].  At the end of this six month period [REDACTED] will notify you whether or not you have satisfactorily completed your probationary period. Should [REDACTED] be dissatisfied or consider you unsuitable for any reason, your employment may be terminated by [REDACTED] on one weeks’ notice at any time during or at the end of the probationary period. [REDACTED] reserves the right to extend your probationary period by notice in writing to you at the end of the initial six-month period for a further period of up to three months on the same terms.   

Having regard to the above clause I note that it was open to the Employer to extend the probation period.  It would appear this was not considered by the Employer.  Unfortunately, as the Employer did not attend the hearing, I have been deprived of the opportunity to understand its perspective on this dispute. 

Applying the reasoning of the Labour Court set out above to the facts of this dispute, I can only conclude the Employer’s handling of the dismissal of the Worker was procedurally flawed and breached the Worker’s right to fair procedures and natural justice.  I note that the Worker was not afforded fair procedures in accordance with the S.I. No. 146/2000 - Industrial Relations Act, 1990 (Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures) (Declaration) Order, 2000.

I have found merit in this dispute. 

In deciding on the appropriate level of compensation I have duly considered and incorporated into my recommendation the procedural shortcomings in both the probation process and the dismissal.   

Taking into consideration all the circumstances set out above I recommend hereunder.