Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Technical Support Advisor  

Technology Company

Representatives

Self-Represented

Mr. David Pearson, J.W. O'Donovan LLP

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Dispute seeking Adjudication under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969

IR - SC – 00003129

16/09/2025

On 16th September 2025, the Worker referred the present dispute to the Commission. Herein, he alleged that his dismissal under the Employer’s probationary policy was substantively unfair. By response, the Employer submitted that they adhered to their probationary policy regarding the dismissal of the Worker and that his natural and contractual rights were respected during the process.  

Following the Employer’s positive election to engage with the dispute within the statutory timeframe, the matter proceeded to hearing. Said hearing was convened for, and finalised on, 25th November 2025. This hearing was conducted by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. No technical issues were experienced during the hearing.

Both parties issued extensive submissions in advance of the hearing. Said submissions were expanded upon and contested in the course of the hearing.

No issues as to my jurisdiction to hear the dispute were raised at any stage of the proceedings.

By way of submission, the Worker stated that he commenced employment on 15th January 2024. At all material times, the role of the Worker was described as that of a “technical support advisor”. The position was subject to a six-month probationary period from the outset of employment. At the commencement of his appointment, the Worker believed that he performed well in the role and met the required expectations. He accepted that there were instances of absence; however, he stated that these were explained to management at the material time and the relevant internal policies in respect of the same were adhered to.

Thereafter, the Worker commenced an extended period of illness absence due to an occurrence of a more serious condition. While the Worker accepted that his probationary period was suspended during this period of extended absence, he submitted that upon his return, he was met with unkind and indifferent attitudes regarding his circumstances. He stated that the final probation meeting was postponed on several occasions and that the final decision regarding his employment took weeks to be delivered, despite assurances from the Employer that the decision would be made in less than one week.

The Worker stated that he experienced emotional distress at the situation, as he remained uncertain as to whether his employment would continue. However, the Worker stated that he was met with indifference from the Employer. In addition, the Worker stated that he was encouraged to undertake upcoming projects, which led him to believe that his employment would be maintained. Despite same, the Worker was informed on 2nd September 2024 that he failed his probationary period and was dismissed from that date.

By submission, the Worker stated that he was extremely disappointed with this outcome. He stated that, while he accepted the occurrence of absences, these were recorded by the Employer in accordance with internal procedures and were essentially unavoidable. Particularly, he submitted that the latter period of extended illness, which resulted from a more serious condition, was entirely outside his control. Having regard to the foregoing, the Worker submitted that his dismissal under the probationary policy of the Employer was unfair and requested a recommendation in his favour.

By submission, the Employer accepted that the Worker commenced employment on 15th January 2024 in the role of technical support advisor. It was stated that he was engaged under a permanent contract, subject to a probationary period of six months, which was consistent with standard contracts of employment. The Employer stated that during this probationary period, the Worker had four separate absences. These consisted of an absence of one day in February 2024, four days in March 2024, two days in April 2024, and a period of approximately six weeks between June and July 2024. These absences were addressed through the return-to-work meetings with the Worker’s line manager at the relevant times. Following these meetings, the Worker was expressly informed that ongoing absence may have a detrimental impact on his probation review.

The Employer submitted that the first three absences occurred within the initial three months of employment. Following those instances, the Worker met with the attending manager for return-to-work discussions, during which it was confirmed that he felt better and required no additional support. During the April absence, a note was made that the team attempted to contact the Worker twice without success. On 13th June 2024, the Worker was again absent and remained away from work for the subsequent six and a half weeks. Upon his return, the Worker was referred for an occupational health assessment, which confirmed that the illness was not work related. No accommodations were suggested, and it was noted that his return to work without such measures was deemed satisfactory.

During the period of extended absence, the Employer paused the probationary period and subsequently extended it to 16th August 2024 to allow the Worker additional time to meet the required objectives. The Worker attended a probation review meeting on 6th August 2024, where he was afforded the opportunity to be represented. Thereafter, he was invited to a probation outcome meeting on 2nd September 2024. The Worker was provided with advanced notice and informed of his right to representation at that meeting. During this meeting, the Worker was informed that he had not achieved the standards expected by the Employer and that he had failed his probation. Consequently, the employment was terminated, and two weeks’ salary was paid in lieu of notice.

The Employer submitted that the dismissal occurred in accordance with the terms of the probationary policy and the principles of natural justice. It was maintained that the Worker was informed of the expected standards during his employment but failed to achieve same. The Employer stated that he was invited to a formal meeting and provided with a right of response prior to the decision to dismiss being finalised. It was submitted that the Worker was afforded ample opportunity to improve; however, despite warnings and support measures, the required improvement did not occur. In those circumstances, the Employer submitted that a recommendation should not be made in favour of the Worker.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

Regarding the present case, the Worker submitted that his dismissal under the probationary policy of the Employer was fundamentally unfair, while raising no particular issue with the process adopted by the Employer in relation to the same. He submitted that the substantive reason for the dismissal, namely absence within the probationary period, was fundamentally unfair. He maintained that he adhered to the absence policy of the Employer in respect of each occasion of absence and that the same were related to medical incapacity. He further submitted that the Employer prolonged the final outcome of the process, which led to considerable emotional distress.

In response, the Employer stated that the Worker engaged with a probationary policy at the commencement of his employment. It was expressly stated within this policy that the Worker was expected to meet certain standards during the probationary period, including those in relation to absence. The Employer submitted that the Worker was spoken to during the course of his employment regarding his absence and that a formal meeting was arranged prior to any decision to dismiss being reached. In this regard, the Employer submitted that it was simply seeking to rely on a contractual term agreed at the outset of the employment of the Worker in dismissing him on the probationary grounds outlined.

In this regard, employers are frequently criticised in this forum for failing to adhere to fair procedures regarding probationary dismissals; however, the present dispute was not such a case. It was apparent that the Worker was spoken to in person in the course of his employment regarding the issues that led to his failing the probationary process and that the probationary policy was clearly set out at the commencement of his employment. It is noted that further, more formal meetings were convened prior to the outcome, at which the Worker was granted the right of representation and was permitted to advocate for his continued employment.

While the Worker has clearly taken issue with the outcome of this procedure, the submission of the Employer to the effect that it sought to rely on a contractual provision agreed with the Worker at the commencement of his employment is accepted. While it is not difficult to have sympathy for the Worker regarding the subject matter of the probationary dismissal, I do not find that the outcome reached by the Employer was achieved in contravention of the Worker’s right to fair procedures, or that the outcome itself was irrational. In these circumstances, I do not recommend in favour of the Worker in relation to the present dispute.

Probationary Dismissals, Absence, Certified