Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

An Employer

Representatives

Self-Represented

Self-Represented

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-00077567-001

13/11/2025

This dispute was referred to the WRC on 13 November 2025 for adjudication 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 27/08/2026.    

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

The Worker was employed as multi drop tool delivery driver.  The Employer is in the business of tool hire. 

The Worker commenced his employment on 07/02/2025 with such employment terminating by way of dismissal on 13/11/2025.  The Worker was paid €610 gross weekly for which he worked 42.50 hours. 

The Worker submits he was dismissed; he believed he was doing his job to a good standard.

The Employer submits that recurring issues arose during the Worker’s probation and were raised with him on several occasions.

Both parties provided helpful written submissions in advance of hearing for which I am grateful.

Overview of WRC complaint form

I started working for [redacted] on 07/02/2025. To my knowledge I had been doing a good job, I never had any meetings or warnings regarding my standard of work. Then on Monday 10/11/2025 rosters for December 2025 and January 2026 were published. I was shocked to see my name wasn't there but didn't see anything wrong with it. On 13/11/2025 I had just came back from my lunch break at 2:40pm and was called aside in the yard. At this time [redacted] told me I was being let go, I asked why and I was told that my probation is up and they were not keeping me on. From my start date to dismissal I have never received a contract, never asked for any sort of ID, never asked for my drivers license even though it was a driving job. I have also never received any written or verbal warnings, or issued with any date of my supposed probation period. I’ve asked multiple times about getting contract and was waved off like it didn’t matter. I asked my employees about their contracts and was told they never received one. I was summoned for jury duty on 08/12/2025 and when I gave [redacted] the letter on 31/10/2025 to prove my summons he was not happy which made me feel I was in the wrong. On the 10/11/2025 I was told by a colleague that a job advertisement went up on Indeed for a drivers position. With no communication I was left wondering if I was gonna lose my job 6 weeks before Christmas.

Overview of written submission

I started employment with [redacted] on 7 February 2025 as a multi drop van driver tool hire. During my employment, I believed I was doing my job to a good standard. I was never called to a meeting regarding my performance, never told that my work was unsatisfactory, and never received any verbal or written warning about my conduct or standard of work. I was not provided with a written contract of employment. I asked on multiple occasions about receiving a contract, but my requests were dismissed or waved off as though it was not important. I also spoke to colleagues about their contracts and was told that they had not received contracts either. I do not recall giving my drivers license or other identification. I was never given any written confirmation of a probationary period, including its length or the date on which it would end. I was also never informed that my employment was approaching the end of a probationary period or that my employment was being reviewed on that basis.

On 31 October 2025, I gave [redacted] documentation confirming that I had been summoned for jury duty on 8 December 2025. His reaction to the jury summons made me feel that I was somehow in the wrong for having been summoned for jury duty. On Monday, 10 November 2025, the rosters for December 2025 and January 2026 were published. I was shocked to see that my name was not included on the rosters. I had received no prior communication telling me that my employment was going to end or that there was an issue with my position.

I asked [redacted] why I had been removed from the rosters for December and January. He told me that he did not want me working Saturdays with him. He referred to an incident on Saturday, 13 September 2025, when I was unable to work. On that occasion, my son unexpectedly required emergency surgery after he had injured his finger. At approximately 1:00 a.m., I contacted a colleague by WhatsApp as soon as I knew to inform them that I would not be able to attend work because of the emergency involving my son. I had no intention of missing my shift and the situation was completely unexpected. I was told by a colleague on 10th November that an advertisement had appeared on Indeed for a driver’s position. Given that I had not been told anything by management, this caused me considerable concern about whether I was going to lose my job, particularly with Christmas only approximately six weeks away.

On 13 November 2025, at approximately 2:40pm, I had just returned from my lunch break when I was called aside in the yard by [redacted].   He told me that I was being let go. I asked him why, and I was told that my probation was up and the company was not keeping me on. This came as a shock to me because I had never previously been told that there was a problem with my work, had never received a warning, had never been given a date for the end of any probationary period, and had never been told that my employment was under review. I am concerned about the circumstances surrounding the termination of my employment, particularly the lack of prior communication, the absence of any documented probationary period or performance concerns, the fact that I was removed from the December and January rosters without explanation, and the timing of the termination shortly after I had provided my jury-duty summons. The way I was dismissed was completely unexpected. I was given no proper warning and no opportunity to prepare myself for losing my employment. It came as a huge shock. From that point, I was under an enormous amount of stress. I was worried about my financial situation and the effect that suddenly losing my income would have on my family.

I found it extremely difficult to cope with what had happened. The stress became so serious that I had to go to my GP for help. My GP’s letter confirms that I attended following my dismissal because of the distress I was experiencing and that I later needed further medical attention because of the stress and psychological impact of what had happened.

The Worker at hearing submits he didn’t know he was on a probation period and that he got no notice.  The Worker maintains he got no contract and he got no handbook.  The Worker submits he wasn’t the best at the job but when he was spoken to it didn’t feel like a warning and he didn’t feel like he was going to lose his job. 

The Worker submits he always did his best and he agrees he was spoken to about his performance but maintains he didn’t feel like he was being warned.  The Worker agrees the job probably didn’t suit him.  It was machinery and tool hire delivery and it was difficult to remember the names of the tools.  The Worker submits there was no warning he might lose his job.  They never told him he was unwilling and that he had to be babysat.  The Worker submits they did have to check his van and he wasn’t unwilling but the job was difficult.  The Worker submits he never took his morning break; he might be late but he would make up the time. 

The Worker submits he was never spoken to about a probation period and he asked for his contract in excess of three times and he was waved away when he asked for it.  The Worker submits he wasn’t unwilling; he found it difficult to remember everything and to get the names of all the tools right and he was never told it was his performance.   The Worker maintains he was never told he was on a trial. 

Overview of written submission

While employees are serving their probation period, we assess their suitability for the job in a permanent role. And we give ample training and patience to them in this period as it is always our wish that someone on probation will become a permanent member of our team. Unfortunately, during the Worker’s period of probation, we had recurrent problems regarding timekeeping, lack of attention to detail regarding paperwork, trustworthiness and a complete unwillingness to take on onboard reasonable instruction regarding simple documentation relevant to the job at hand.

With respect to the above, [redacted] would have talked to the Worker regarding the above on several occasions: On February 18th, the Worker was first recorded late for work and then again on February 20th.

20.02.25 [redacted] first talked to the Worker  about his lack of punctuality regarding arriving to work late and this was not acceptable and would have to improve.

On 11.03.25, the Worker was late again and once again [redacted] talked to him regarding the same.

21.05.25 the Worker was late again and [redacted] talked to him stating that this could not keep going on and would simply have to improve. All van drivers start at 7.30 and are to be ready to go at 7.30.

Tuesday 26.08.25, the Worker arrived at work at 9.50am, 2 hours and 20 minutes late for work. Once again, [redacted] took him aside and told him this was not acceptable and could not go on.

Saturday September 13th, the Worker failed to show up for work and contacted neither [redacted] nor [redacted] but instead contacted a fellow employee, by WhatsApp to say his son cut his finger and would not be able to attend work on Saturday.

It should equally be pointed out that [redacted] was working that Saturday yet the Worker failed to ring him at any time during that day to inform him of the situation and his failure to attend work that day.   The business runs a skeleton staff on Saturday with only 1 driver responsible for all deliveries on that day which the Worker knew but yet failed to try to get a fellow driver to cover for him for that Saturday to enable deliveries and collections to be completed which resulted in us having to contact several customers and inform them that we had to cancel their orders at last minute and also resulting in a loss of business and reputation to our family business.

Monday 15.09.25, [redacted] took the Worker aside to tell him that this was serious misconduct for the above reasons and we need to be able to trust and rely on our staff that they will carry out their responsibilities.

Tuesday 16.09.25, on arrival to work, the Worker asked to have a word with [redacted].   The Worker informed [redacted] that he had talked to his partner on the Monday night and thought about the warning [redacted] had given to him and he wanted to apologies saying he liked the job and really wanted to stay.

[redacted] said that was fine, we wanted him to stay and want things to work out but the Worker would seriously have to pick up his game regarding time keeping, communication and paperwork. In light of this lack of trust and reliability in the Worker and damage to our company reputation, we understandably did not add the Worker to the next scheduled Saturday roster.

Friday 17.10.25 Once again the Worker was 30 minutes late for work and once again [redacted] took him aside literally to plead with him to pick it up or things were not going to work out.  With regards to paperwork, during his probation period, the Worker’s attention to detail and apparent lack of willingness and what almost seemed defiance to do his job as instructed by us on numerous occasions, led us to almost having to babysit him.

24.07.25 [redacted] talked to the Worker about his poor paperwork and documentation and attention.  As a hire company, delivering and collecting machinery consisting or various components, attention to detail is of paramount importance and we give great time and patience and instruction in training to our drivers how to do this job and assistance was always available if there was ever any questions or doubts regarding any aspect of their job.

Regarding paperwork, returns and delivery paperwork works on a duplication process whereby the customers and company receive a duplicate record of all transactions which is processed on site. The Worker was talked to on numerous occasions regarding this but again seemed defiant of this instruction and his mind set was that he would do all his paperwork when he returned to the depot in his van or in the canteen. Examples of the complications this caused will follow.

His lack of willingness to take instruction from the company resulted in [redacted] informing him that his van would need to be checked by the workshop manager while leaving the depot and on returning to the depot, that he was not forgetting items for delivery or collection and that his paperwork was in order and so resulting in another member of staff in having to oversee his every move was akin to babysitting him. He did comply with this instruction for possibly a week or 2 but then went back to his old ways. Again, examples of the resulting consequences of this will follow.

23.10.25 [redacted] once again talked to the Worker regarding paperwork and to plead with him to see the workshop manager as previously instructed to ensure he had everything on his van before leaving the premises before going to site as we could not afford to be forgetting items and to go to site 2 or 3 times. [redacted] informed the Worker that he was running out of patience and this was a ridiculous situation and this was the last warning he was going to give the Worker regarding paperwork and documentation. Regarding collections of items from site, the diver is given a list of what he should be collecting. He is asked to record what he actually collects in a duplicate returns book, 1 copy for the customer and 1 copy for the company. Regularly, the driver is not given what is on the list and is simply asked to record in his returns book what he actually got.

The Worker refused to adhere to this procedure and simply copied word for word the original return paperwork into his duplicate book, not on site, but back at the depot, regardless of what he was given, This resulted in the Worker’s paperwork allowing us to believe he had collected items when in fact he had not but rather left them on site.

As you can appreciate, we deal in high value goods and this lack of due care or lack of responsibility would result in items not being collected, going missing and potential losses to the family business and very frustrated customers.

Examples of the difficulties of his refusal to comply with the above are the following: 20.10.25 the Worker had delivered 2 indirect heaters to a customer but delivered the wrong hoses with the heaters resulting in another customer who had ordered 2 different heaters arriving at our counter only to be told we did not have the heaters available for him resulting in the loss of reputation and financial loss of €250.

While mistakes can happen, this was an example of the consequence of the Worker failing to adhere to reasonable instruction regarding the workshop manager checking his items before he left making sure he had the correct items and his paperwork was in order.

23.10.25 [redacted] talked to the Worker regarding this incident and the detrimental results of him failing to follow our reasonable instructions. 24.10.25, just 1 day after [redacted] had talked to the Worker about the above, and to ensure his van was to be checked by the workshop manager before leaving our premises with deliveries to ensure paperwork and goods were in order, the Worker was scheduled to deliver the sale of 2 ladders to [redacted] in Blackrock.    The Worker proceeded to drive straight out of the yard to site and returned shortly after.

On return, he instructed our transport manager that he has to leave work to meet his mother in Ballsbridge. In the meantime, we had realised that the second ladder was still in our yard and had not been delivered to the site.  [redacted] followed the Worker down the yard to his van and observed him loading the ladder onto his van and asked what was the situation about meeting his mother in Ballsbridge.

The Worker informed [redacted] that he had forgotten the ladder and that he did not want to highlight it as he had only received a warning from [redacted] the previous day and it would only cause him more trouble. [redacted] told him this is exactly why we kept on giving him reasonable instruction to get everything checked before he left the premises and now we had to do a needless second delivery to site.

[redacted] asked the Worker could he not see the consequences of his actions and why did he make up a story about meeting his mother in Ballsbridge.  [redacted] told the Worker to be straight in his dealings with us and that honesty and trustworthiness are important and that if his performance does not improve that we would have to consider whether it would be possible to continue how employment as trust and reliability had been broken due the Worker’s consistent unreliability.

[redacted] then proceeded to tell him that if he was refusing to get his van checked by the workshop manager before leaving premises, he would now, from the 24.10.25, going forward, have to get his van checked by one of the following senior members of management.  He adhered to his for 2 or 3 days then then unbelievably stopped doing so and at this stage we felt we had exhausted every avenue of trying to persuade the Worker to do his job the way we had asked him to.

Regarding the Worker’s written contract, as a long-established family business, it would be standard procedure to issue all employees with a written contract as soon as possible after they commence. We have checked our records and we do not have a signed contract from the Worker on file but to our best of knowledge is that we gave him 2 copies of the contract and he either failed or forgot to return our signed copy to us.  We would adhere to the standard probation period of 12 months and the probation period was outlined in the contract given to the Worker. 

As with any other member of staff, the Worker would have been in the full knowledge that he was on probation to ascertain his suitability to the job and in our talks to and warnings to the Worker we would have pointed out to him that he was on probation and to follow our reasonable instructions if he wanted to become a full time member of staff beyond hid probationary period.

We will always try have a cut of point of approximately 9 months if we feel a staff member is not going to be made permanent.  As stated previously, we try and be a fair company and as such, would never terminate somone’s employment in December and only did so in November to give the Worker the best possible chance of finding alternative employment before Christmas. At this point, we paid the Worker everything that was due to him immediately without delay including his weeks notice, any holidays that were due to him and his back week and informed revenue straight away so he was all set for hiswe invested a huge amount of time a patience in training him and hoping that he would become both a fulltime driver and representative of the company.

We showed understanding and encouragement all the way but unfortunately the Worker’s unwillingness to adhere to our repeated reasonable instruction made him unsuitable to keep on as a permanent member of team.

The Employer at hearing submits it’s a family business trading over 50 years with a strong ethos of teamwork.  It’s a relaxed and happy workplace with long standing members of staff.  They try to accommodate staff and rarely say no.  The Employer submits they give good training and they are always contactable as employers.  It’s clear they see things differently to how the Worker sees them. 

The Employer submits they coached the Worker; they instructed him and did everything they could to keep him but they had lost trust in the end.  The Employer submits they did try and try; they talked to him and tried to encourage him but time keeping, paperwork and procedure were definitely issues. 

After the incident when he didn’t turn up on the Saturday (13 September) he was taken aside on the Monday and spoken to.  The consequences of his no show on the Saturday were explained to him and he was told if that happens again he’d be gone.  The Employer submits on 17 October the Worker was late again and he was told if he was late again he would be gone. 

The Employer submits they tried to train him and to coach him; the job is doable they 6 drivers that can do it but the Worker just couldn’t seem to complete the duplicate paperwork on site of delivery / collection.   He was doing it in the canteen when he returned and he made no effort to do it at the point of delivery or collection.  The Employer submits they kept him for 9 months; could have let him go much earlier.  After the ladders incident he was told do this again and you are gone.  He was given two specific warnings the first of which was Monday 15 September. 

The Employer submits they try to avoid written warnings and they thought talking to the Worker was the best way.  When asked the Employer submits they didn’t consider an appeal. 

In conducting this investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties together with the information shared at hearing. 

Having listened to both parties in this dispute it quickly became apparent there was, at the very least, a gap of mutual understanding on the manner in which events unfolded during the tenure of the Worker’s employment with the Employer. 

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.  

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. 

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.”

I note the Worker at hearing submits he didn’t know he was on probation.  He submits he had no idea about a probation period.  When asked the Worker submits he has had other jobs in the past and probation would have been 3 months.  I note the Worker submits he did not receive a contract.  I note the Employer disputes this and a contract was opened to the hearing that was said to have issued to a colleague of the Worker’s on or about the same time the Worker commenced his employment and dated 10/02/2025.    

Having reviewed the probationary clause in the aforesaid contract I note it provides as follows:

Probationary Period

For the first 11 months of your employment, you will be employed on a probationary basis. Your performance will be reviewed during and at the end of 11 months and if satisfactory, your appointment will be made permanent. The Organisation retains the right to extend your probationary period, subject to a maximum probationary period, inclusive of notice, of 12 months should this be deemed necessary, and this will be done following discussions with you. It is hereby mutually agreed that employment can be terminated by either party giving one week’s written notice during the probationary period or, in the case of the Organisation, one week’s salary in lieu of such notice. The organisation reserves the right to apply a modified disciplinary procedure during the probationary period.

I recommend that the Employer should carefully note the following. 

The European Union (Transparent and Predictable Working Conditions) Regulations 2022 were implemented in Ireland on 16 December 2022 and introduced changes to the duration of probationary periods. The Regulations now set a maximum duration of 6 months for probationary periods for private sector employees unless there are exceptional circumstances or, if an extension is in the best interests of the employee, in which case the probationary period may be extended to 12 months.  Employers are also entitled to extend the period of probation in circumstances where an employee has been absent due to statutory leave such as sick leave or parent’s leave and as provided for in the legislation.

The Transparent and Predictable Working Conditions Regulations 2022 (“the Regulations”) came into effect on 16 December 2022. The Regulations transpose the EU Directive 2019/1152 on Transparent and Predictable Working Conditions (“the Directive”). The Regulations amend a number of pieces of existing employment legislation, to include the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994, the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997, the Workplace Relations Act 2015 and the Protection of Employees (Fixed Term Work) Act 2003.

The purpose of the Directive was to provide transparency in working arrangements and protection to those employees on less secure contracts, for example, temporary contracts or gig economy workers.  However, the Regulations apply to all employees.

For completeness, even if it is accepted the Worker received a contract in the format as presented and opened to the hearing by the Employer, the probationary period specified in it exceeded the lawful maximum. 

Nevertheless, as the Worker had less than 12 months’ service, he could not avail of the protections of the Unfair Dismissals Acts in any event. 

Based on all the information shared at hearing it does appear that there were performance issues which were honestly conceded by the Worker when he submits at hearing “he wasn’t the best at the job.”

However, I am unable to find there was a structured approach to the management of the Worker’s probation.  I am not satisfied that the Worker’s probation was pro-actively managed.  It would appear there were ad-hoc conversations where matters were raised but there was absolutely no documentation put before me that might have set out the performance deficits to the Worker or that might have set out that his job was in jeopardy. 

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.   

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.