Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Porter

A Provider of Emergency Accommodation

Representatives

  In person

 CMG Consultants

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Dispute seeking adjudication in accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

IR - SC - 00002954

02/08/2024

The worker was employed as a Porter from 29th January 2024 until his dismissal on or about 8th July 2024. The dispute referred to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) on 2nd August 2024 relates to an alleged unfair dismissal under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

Note: As this is a referral under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, mitigation of loss is not required to be proven in the same way as it would under the Unfair Dismissal Act, 1977. The worker is compensated for the way he was treated rather than the losses he incurred.

The worker confirmed that he was employed as a porter from 29th January 2024 until 8th July 2024. The worker highlighted some initial problems that occurred in respect of his salary payments and taxation issues. While these issues were eventually resolved, the worker stated that he sought a pay increase on or about 2nd July 2024 to coincide with the wage increases under the Security Industry Employment Regulation Order (ERO) as well as an increase in respect of working at night. The worker stated that following this request, he attended a meeting with his manger on 8th July 2024 and was dismissed.

The worker stated that previously asking for a payslip, a pay rise and an unsociable hours allowance were the reasons he was dismissed, yet the employer stated it was performance related. The worker further stated that during his probation there were no meetings to discuss his performance or any issues of concern raised to him formally during that time. The worker is claiming compensation in respect of the unfair dismissal.

The employer contends that the worker’s dismissal was fair and related to repeated issues with his performance. The employer cited a number of issues that arose in the month of March 2024. These issues included a late night gathering on the premises where the worker did not intervene or ensure that the rules of the facility were adhered to. There were also issues of overflowing bins and uncleaned floors during the worker’s shifts. The employer stated that these issues were raised to the worker in performance meetings. The employer further stated that the worker attended a meeting on 8th July 2024 in advance of the end of his probationary period and was dismissed due to poor performance.

The employer acknowledged that no formal performance meetings took place during the probationary period although issues of concern to the employer were addressed with the worker as they arose. The employer stated that at the meeting of 8th July 2024 the worker’s line manager considered the performance issues and the workers response to same but decided to terminate the employment on the basis that he had not met the performance requirements of the role during the probationary period.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties in respect of the workers unfair dismissal.

I also note that the ERO for the Security Industry does not apply to the worker’s employment and no complaint has been submitted in respect of the payment of Sunday Premium, although it is noted that Sunday premium payments were included in the worker’s salary payments.

In respect of the worker’s dismissal, there are several issues of concern. There were no formal probationary meetings during the probationary period, the worker was unaware that his continued employment was at risk, or formally on notice that an improvement was required. He was dismissed after his manager considered his continued employment for a few minutes after a probationary meeting and he was not provided with an opportunity to appeal the dismissal.

Having considered the submissions of both parties to this dispute, I find that the employer did not treat the worker in a fair or reasonable manner. The employer was seemingly of the view that the worker could simply be dismissed during the probationary period, without any formal appraisal meetings or without being informed of performance issues or given any opportunity to improve. It is also concerning that the worker was not given an opportunity to appeal the dismissal. All these issues are at variance with the established principles of fairness that one would expect from an employer, even when an employee is on probation.

In conclusion, I find that the worker was unfairly dismissed due to the lack of fair procedures in respect of his probationary period and subsequent dismissal. I recommend that the worker receive compensation as a result.

I recommend that the employer pay the worker €5,000 in compensation in respect of his unfair dismissal.

Unfair Dismissal under Industrial Relations Legislation