Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

An Employer

Representatives

Self-Represented

No Appearance

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

IR - SC - 00004633

02/07/2025

The dispute concerns the termination of the Worker’s employment. The Worker took up a senior role with the Employer and commenced employment on 6 February 2023. She relocated internationally to take up that role. Her employment was terminated on 25 August 2023 following a meeting which she understood to have been convened to address concerns she had raised regarding her line manager. The Employer did not attend the hearing and did not contest the Worker’s account of events.

The Worker gave evidence that she took up a senior role with the Employer, commencing employment on 6 February 2023. She stated that she relocated internationally to take up the position and did so in reliance on the offer of employment made to her.

The Worker outlined that, during her employment, she did not receive any formal probation review, performance meetings, or structured feedback. While her contract of employment provided for a probationary period, no probation meeting took place. She stated that the individual who was to conduct such a review was unavailable for a period due to personal circumstances and reduced working hours.

The Worker gave evidence that her performance was strong and supported by internal metrics and feedback. She referred to achieving results in excess of expectations and to written acknowledgment from management regarding the quality of her work.

On 23 August 2023, the Worker raised concerns with the hiring manager regarding the conduct of her line manager. She was asked to provide examples of the behaviours complained of and understood that the matter would be evaluated. She stated that she believed a meeting arranged for 25 August 2023 was to discuss and resolve those concerns.

The Worker gave evidence that, at the outset of that meeting, which was attended by the hiring manager and the line manager, an HR representative joined the call and she was informed that her employment was being terminated with immediate effect. She stated that she had not been informed in advance of the purpose of the meeting and was not afforded an opportunity to be accompanied.

The Worker stated that she had received no prior warning that her performance or conduct were unsatisfactory, had not been subject to any disciplinary process, and had not been given an opportunity to respond to any concerns or to improve her performance or conduct. She further stated that she was not provided with the Employer’s grievance or disciplinary procedures.

Following the termination, the Worker was required to take accrued annual leave and was paid in lieu of notice. She stated that, notwithstanding the payment of notice, her removal from the role was immediate and she was not afforded any meaningful transition period.

The Worker gave evidence as to the impact of her dismissal, including the difficulty she experienced in securing alternative employment despite sustained efforts to do so. She stated that the short tenure of her employment with the Employer had been a recurring issue in interviews and had adversely affected her employability.

The Employer did not attend the scheduled hearing of this complaint. Having reviewed the file, I am satisfied that the Employer was on notice of the claim against it and the hearing date, time and log-in arrangements. I waited a reasonable period of time before proceeding with the hearing in the absence of the Employer.

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

While the Worker did not have the requisite service to pursue a claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 (as amended), this does not negate an entitlement to fair procedures in the context of dismissal.

The Employer did not attend the hearing and did not provide any evidence. I am satisfied that the Employer was properly notified of the hearing. In those circumstances, I have considered the Worker’s uncontested evidence.

The Worker’s evidence was clear and consistent. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I accept her account of the circumstances surrounding her dismissal.

I am satisfied that the Worker took up a senior role with the Employer and that she relocated internationally in order to do so. I accept her evidence that she did not receive any formal probation review, performance management, or structured feedback during her period of employment.

I further accept the Worker’s evidence that, on 23 August 2023, she raised concerns regarding the conduct of her line manager and that she understood that those concerns would be evaluated. I am satisfied that the Worker reasonably believed that the meeting scheduled for 25 August 2023 was to address those concerns. I accept her evidence that she was not informed in advance that the purpose of that meeting was to inform her of the termination of her employment.

I find that, at that meeting, the Worker was informed without prior notice that her employment was being terminated and that she was not afforded any opportunity to respond to the concerns relied upon by the Employer. I am satisfied that she was not afforded representation, was not subject to any form of disciplinary or performance management process, and was not given an opportunity to improve.

I note that the Worker commenced employment on 6 February 2023 and remained in employment until 25 August 2023. While her contract provided for a probationary period of six months, no formal probation review took place. On the evidence before me, the Worker had completed in excess of six months’ service by the date of her dismissal. I accept her evidence that the failure to conduct a probation review was not attributable to her but arose due to the unavailability of the relevant manager.

In those circumstances, I find that the Employer cannot rely on the existence of a probationary period to dilute its obligation to afford fair procedures. Where an employer elects not to operate its own probationary processes, it cannot subsequently seek to rely on the absence of their completion to justify the manner of a dismissal.

Even if I were to accept that the Worker remained within a probationary period at the relevant time, it is well established that an employer is not relieved of the obligation to act fairly. In that regard, I note the position of the Labour Court in C & W O’Brien Architects Limited v. A Worker (LCR22301) that the requirements of S.I. No. 146/2000 – Industrial Relations Act, 1990 (Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures)(Declaration) Order, 2000 (hereinafter “the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures”) must be complied with prior to any decision to dismiss. I further note the Labour Court’s observation in Brampton Care Ltd v. A Worker (LCR22255) that a failure to adhere to the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures constitutes a fundamental defect in the decision-making process.

Applying those principles to the facts of the present case, I am satisfied that the Employer failed entirely to adhere to the requirements of fair procedures. There was a complete absence of any process. The Worker was not put on notice that her employment was at risk, was not informed of any concerns in a structured manner, and was not afforded an opportunity to respond or to improve. The manner in which the dismissal was effected, in circumstances where the Worker reasonably believed she was attending a meeting to discuss concerns she had raised, compounded that failure.

While I note that the Worker was described as being within a probationary period, this does not displace the requirement to afford fair procedures. The absence of any process whatsoever represents a serious departure from the standards expected of an employer.

I have also had regard to the impact of the dismissal on the Worker. She relocated internationally to take up the role and I accept her evidence that she has made sustained efforts to mitigate her loss but has encountered ongoing difficulty in securing alternative employment, in part due to the short tenure of her employment with the Employer. In those circumstances, I am satisfied that the manner of her dismissal has had a significant adverse impact on her professional standing and employability.