Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Vicki  Clough

Design & Craft Council, Ireland

Representatives

Einde O'Donnell Alastair Purdy LLP

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994.

CA-00072994-001

01/07/2025

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 17 June 2024 as an Education Centre Manager. She stated that in deciding to extend her probationary period on 2 December 2024 the Respondent applied a period of probation to her contract of employment in contravention of the Act.

The Complainant stated that when she started her employment she did not have a line manager, but reported directly to the Head of Operations and the CEO at the time. She was responsible for completing her own probation forms and setting her targets as outlined by the CEO, which was signed off on.

During her first few months of employment, she had several meetings relating to her performance and everything was reportedly going smoothly. A new Head of Department, her new line manager, was appointed in late September, roughly three weeks before her mid-point review was due. The onus was on the Complainant to ensure that the mid-point review was scheduled, which was held with the interim CEO and her line manager. During this meeting, the Complainant was responsible for providing her probation forms and outlining the next three-month targets. At no point were any issues with her performance flagged, and she frequently sought feedback.

Two weeks before the completion of her six-month probationary period in December 2024, the Complainant contacted HR and her line manager to discuss this. She was then informed by her line manager that they had issues with her performance and that her probation would be extended. The reason given was that she was "unprofessional" in an email that was sent weeks prior, but no constructive feedback had been provided at any time.

The Complainant was told by HR and the interim CEO that the extension of her probation was justified because she didn't have a line manager for part of her probation. She asserted that the extension of her probation was not in her best interest because no clear support or strategies for improvement were offered. The onus was put on her to schedule meetings with her line manager for check ins. During these conversations, her manager began frequently criticising her work, after the fact, while not providing any helpful guidance or support. The Complainant was accused of always telling her line manager that she couldn't do her job, which she stated was factually incorrect.

Following the extension of her probation on 2 December 2024, the Complainant approached HR to discuss the matter and was told that she just needed to improve her performance, despite meeting all targets outlined early in her probation contract. She stated that she informed HR that the extension of her probation felt punitive due to communication issues and that she had attempted to resolve them. She stated that she asked for support and began the process of informal bullying reporting in December 2024 against her line manager. She was assigned a "contact person", who was the Head of Operations and the interim CEO. They discussed options for improving the working relationship between herself and her manager and she made the Respondent aware that the constant criticism and lack of job security when she should have been past probation was beginning to take a toll on her health. The Complainant’s contact person asked if she would be open to supervised one to one meetings with her line manager and while she had misgivings, the Complainant agreed in good faith.

The Complainant attended three bi-weekly supervised meetings with a "business coach" in early 2025. Her belief was that these sessions were intended to provide a mediated approach to communication and offer strategies for better relationship building between her and her line manager. Her experience in these sessions was mixed. She stated that she ultimately believed however that no matter how hard she worked, that she wouldn't pass probation and therefore made the decision to resign from her employment.

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 17 June 2024 as an Education Centre Manager. Her employment was subject to a probationary period, during which her performance was to be assessed by the Respondent. On 2 December 2024, the Complainant attended a review meeting with the Respondent. During the meeting the Complainant’s performance to date was assessed and a Probationary Review Form was duly completed. As clearly indicated on the form and explained to the Complainant during the probationary review meeting, the Complainant received low scores in several competency areas to include planning and organisation, communication, people management and quality of work. Consequently, the Respondent determined that it was necessary and appropriate to extend the Complainant’s probationary period for a further 3 months. Notably, by way of acceptance, this form was signed by the Complainant. In order to facilitate the Complainant’s successful completion of her extended probationary period, the Respondent appointed an external coach. The coach was engaged specifically to provide guidance and support to the Complainant in relation to her work performance and to assist in fostering a constructive working relationship with her manager. On 5 February 2025, the Complainant resigned from her position.

Preliminary Point:

This complaint was referred to the WRC on 1 July 2025.

Section 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 provides as follows in respect of time limits:

“Subject to subsection (8), an adjudication officer shall not entertain a complaint referred to him or her under this section if it has been presented to the Director General after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates.”

While the Respondent contended that any alleged breach of the Act could only have occurred on 2 December 2024, being the date on which the Complainant was informed that her probation would be extended, the Complainant maintained that, as she remained on probation on her final day of employment, namely 5 February 2025, the complaint was submitted within the cognisable period.

It is not in dispute that the Complainant was notified on 2 December 2024 that her probation was being extended. If that extension was in breach of the Act, the contravention occurred on the date the Respondent communicated that decision to the Complainant.

The legislation cited above is clear that time runs from “the date of the contravention”. In the present case, the complaint is not that the termination breached the Act, but rather that the extension of probation did so.

I am not satisfied that this constitutes a continuing contravention, as alleged by the Complainant. The extension was a discrete act that took effect on 2 December 2024. The fact that the Complainant remained employed and subject to the extended probation thereafter does not transform the original act into a continuing breach for the purposes of calculating time.

Accordingly, I find that I do not have jurisdiction to hear this complaint, as it was not referred to the WRC within six months of the alleged contravention of the Act on 2 December 2024.

I find that I do not have jurisdiction to hear this complaint for the reasons set out above.