Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Catering Assistant

Catering and Restaurant Provider

Representatives

Robert Jacob,

Jacob and Twomey Solicitors

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 - 00003934

28/02/2025

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

IR - SC - 00003935

28/02/2025

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

IR - SC - 00003936

28/02/2025

This hearing was conducted in person in the Workplace Relations Commission situate in Lansdowne Road, Dublin. In line with the Supreme Court decision in the constitutional case of Zalewski -v- An Adjudication Officer and the Workplace Relations Commission and Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 (delivered on the 6th of April 2021) the hearing was conducted in recognition of the fact that all formal hearings should be conducted fairly. The hearing was not conducted in public as it concerned a dispute brought under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act of 1969.

Industrial Relations disputes are primarily heard on the basis of factual submissions provided by the respective parties. Relevant parties might be invited to give an oral recollection of events, facts and matters within their knowledge. Testimony may be subject to rebuttal by witnesses or other relevant contradicting evidence provided by the other side. IR disputes are heard in private and the recommendation is anonymised.

The specific Details of the Dispute are outlined in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which was received by the WRC on the 28th of February 2025 and relate to a period of employment which had ended just over six months previously.

In the interests of fairness, the WRC acquiesced to an application made for the provision of an interpreter. It is noted that the interpreter is provided to assist the Adjudicator to conduct an orderly and fair hearing of the complaints being made by the Complainant in his/her preferred language. The interpreter did not guide or assist the person for whom the interpreter was sought i.e. the Complainant. The Interpreter simply interpreted what was being said by the Complainant. I perceived there to be no difficulty in communication between the Interpreter and he Complainant.

The Complainant was not represented and provided an oral account of the facts of the dispute that has brought these parties together before the WRC. The Complainant came alone.

The Complainant provided supporting documents when she first issued her complaint form.  The Complaint Form is dated the 28th day of February 2025.

The Complainant provided further documentation in the run up to the hearing date.

Where it also became necessary, I explained how the Adjudication process operated with particular emphasis on the need for the Complainant to set out what her disputes with the Respondent were.

The Complainant is making the case that her dismissal was unfair and that the sanction imposed was unfair and further she asserts that  the Employer failed to address a Bullying and Harassment issue raised by the Complainant. The Complainant was employed with the Respondent company for about five months having started with them in March of 2024.

Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute. 

The Respondent had full legal representation at this hearing. The Respondent entity was further represented by the presence of its HR Manager JC.

The Respondent provided me with a comprehensive written submission received by the WRC on the 20th of July 2026.

The HR Manager who attended on behalf of the company gave evidence in relation to issues that I asked of her for clarity around certain points.

The Respondent rejects that there has been an unfair dismissal and stands over its entitlement to dismiss this Employee in circumstances where the Complainant was failing the probationary period as the Complainant’s temperament and aptitude were found to be not aligned with the requirements of the job.

Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute.

I have carefully considered the evidence adduced in this matter. The Complainant willingly completed a number of online training modules to ensure that she was suitably prepared to undertake a catering role with the Respondent. The Complainant subsequently commenced employment with the Respondent in or around mid-March 2024 and was assigned to the premises of one of the Respondent's clients. There was a six-month probationary period

The Respondent employed up to 450 employees at the site in question and was acutely aware of the importance of maintaining the client contract in a highly competitive environment. The Complainant's role required her to interact with the client's customers, and certain standards of customer service and workplace conduct were expected.

In my view, the employment relationship initially appeared to progress satisfactorily. The Complainant gave evidence that she worked 37.5 hours per week and was remunerated at the minimum wage. In or around June 2024, the Complainant began to experience pain in her legs and shoulders. In her evidence, she appeared to attribute these symptoms to the physical aspects of her role, which included carrying crockery and clearing tables.

As a consequence, the Complainant was absent on sick leave on two separate occasions for a number of days. No adverse reaction or repercussion arising from these absences was identified in the evidence before me. Indeed, the Complainant's manager insisted that the Complainant  obtain confirmation from her own General Practitioner that she was fit to return to work before resuming her duties. I do not consider there to have been anything unusual or inappropriate in that requirement.

The Complainant returned to the workplace on 14 August 2024. On that date, she was called to a meeting with her manager. The manager brought the Complainant to her office and explained that four of the Complainant's colleagues had provided statements concerning an incident which had allegedly occurred on 31 July 2024. Other issues around personality clashes were also included in the statements

The Respondent was primarily concerned by reports that, during the course of her duties, the Complainant had refused to clear a table at which a customer had been seated. According to the second hand evidence, the Complainant indicated to the customer that responsibility for that table rested with another colleague and that the colleague would be available shortly to attend to it.

The Complainant's manager sent the Complainant home pending a further meeting, which was scheduled for 16 August 2024.

It is clear to me that the Respondent regarded the alleged conduct as a serious matter. This was not viewed as a minor workplace issue capable of being addressed informally during the course of the Complainant's probationary period. Rather, it appears that the Respondent was actively contemplating the termination of the Complainant's employment.

It has been pointed out to me that the Contract of Employment provides:

"During the probationary period, the normal disciplinary procedures will not apply."

However, I do not accept that this provision can be interpreted as excluding the employee's entitlement to basic standards of fairness and natural justice.

The Complainant attended the scheduled meeting unaccompanied, which, in hindsight, was ill-advised. In circumstances where the Respondent was clearly considering the possibility of dismissal, it would have been more prudent to ensure that the Complainant understood the seriousness of the situation and had an opportunity to avail of appropriate support or representation.

The meeting itself bore many of the hallmarks of an investigative process. Notes were taken and subsequently typed. However, the Complainant was not afforded an opportunity to review or comment upon the accuracy of those notes. Furthermore, the various explanations and responses offered by the Complainant were not put to the four individuals who had previously provided statements concerning her alleged conduct. Such steps are commonly recognised features of a fair disciplinary process and assist in ensuring that all relevant evidence is properly tested before conclusions are reached.

I further note that the matter did not progress to a formal disciplinary hearing. Instead, the Respondent proceeded directly to termination and, by letter dated 17 August 2024, advised the Complainant that her employment was being brought to an end. No right of appeal was offered. The Complainant received one week's pay in lieu of notice and her employment ceased immediately thereafter.

In my view, this represented a significant departure from well-established workplace procedures. The process was effectively truncated, with a number of important procedural safeguards omitted.

I am not suggesting that adherence to those safeguards would necessarily have altered the outcome. Rather, the issue is that the Respondent bears the burden of demonstrating that its decision-making process was fair and that justice was not only done but was seen to be done. I do not accept that the contractual provision stating that the normal disciplinary procedures would not apply during probation can be relied upon as a licence to dispense entirely with the principles of fair procedure.

On balance, I am satisfied that the Respondent had genuine concerns regarding the Complainant's conduct and that the decision to dismiss was not, in itself, going to be inherently unreasonable. However, I am equally satisfied that the procedure adopted in reaching that decision fell significantly short of the standards of fairness that the Complainant was entitled to expect. Consequently, while the substantive grounds for dismissal may have existed, the process by which the dismissal was affected was, in my view, fundamentally unfair.

I note that the Complainant raised a Grievance with the HR Manager on the day that she was due to attend the Investigation/ Disciplinary meeting. The HR Manager did not actively engage with the commencement of a Grievance process in circumstances where the Complainant was let go the next day.