Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Customer Services   Representative

Client Account Service Provider

Representatives

                                     Perter Flood Ibec,

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint    seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under the    Industrial Relations Acts

CA-00011571-001

25/05/2017

The Complainant was employed as a Customer Service   Representative from 7^th September 2015 to 25^th May   2016. He was paid €2,181.35 per month. He has claimed that he was unfairly   dismissed while on probation. He has sought compensation.

1. Representation:   Though representation by a fellow employee is allowed according to the   procedures, he was refused representation during his Probation Review meeting   as he discussed with the HR Representative over email. Trade Union   representation was denied at any time. It was clear that trade unions   representatives are not welcome.

Though the Employer pointed out they thought a fellow   employee was the best representative as they knew the systems being used, it   is very convenient for a company to take this position when a large part of   their employees do not even have the skills to hold a general conversation in   English. He was working on the Benelux team where most agents have good to   excellent English speaking skills but even there certain colleagues mentioned   to that they ‘wished they had the verbal skills in English like him so they   could take up their cases with HR’.

2. The Grievance   Policy:

He would not have considered the Grievance Procedure as an   option. For every formal discussion that was held, the disciplinary procedure   was included in the invitation. When he asked for the procedures for his Probation   Review meeting he was told there was none which is why he was very suspicious   of the meeting as he went in there feeling like he had no rights as far as   the company was concerned. He never even thought the Grievance Policy was an   option until it was pointed out. To him there is no difference between a   procedure and a policy which might be a cultural difference.

3. His initial   refusal to discuss other topics than the PIP during his Probation Review:  

He was aware through online research and talking to SIPTU   that he had to be informed in advance what was going to be discussed at a   meeting, that procedures had to be in place to make sure all was fair, that he   had a right to ask for representation and that the parties involved in an   investigation meeting and the outcome meeting should be different and   impartial. None of these things were respected. He understands that as an   employee he should be open and friendly towards his employer. The meeting could   only be about the PIP. As he pointed   out in his claim, the people present at the meeting were the same people that   acknowledged previously that the CSAT was not accurate and were now using   this information clearly to get him fired. This meeting with his team leader   and HR, one of his most important arguments. 

4. CSAT:

There was a lot of confusion on several occasions how a   computer generated metric as the CSAT could be different for him than for   other members of his team. The Employer was quick to confirm that but the   CSAT is the result of several metrics which can be unfairly influenced on a   team level. This is where the divide between the HR level and the team level   comes into play. As the Employer gets paid according to the metrics, they,   understandably, only care about these metrics. When HR sees a bad CSAT,   they’ll help you to improve that and when it doesn’t, you get fired.

Now, getting coaching from someone who only started   working in the company and had to ask me, the person she needed to coach, how   certain things worked, is a bit mind boggling, as well as having a team   leader explain to you metrics without being able to explain where they come   from and how they are generated. This was included in my original evidence   but never mentioned yesterday.

Regarding the CSAT, he understands that the Adjudicator   doesn’t want to know the details of how the CSAT works, but as he tried to   explain on several occasions, the difference between an email CSAT and a   phone CSAT is very important. Several bad phone CSATs a week would not be   problematic but just one bad email CSAT could lower your CSAT total with 20%.   As the target was 90% or more, one bad email CSAT could seriously harm your   stats. That the email CSAT weighs so much more on the total is an agreement   made with Google and the reason why team leaders would search for phone cases   that were done incorrectly via email as they could mess up the stats for the   agent, the team and the company as a whole. When a team leader looks up in an   automated system (!) which phone cases were done via email and you can prove   that the majority (!!!) of the cases the system shows as done incorrectly, are   done correctly, there is a serious problem going on.

This was discussed with his team leader and HR at an   ‘informal’ meeting. The conclusion of this meeting was, that if his accuracy   wasn’t a 100% at the end of that month, every single case would be checked so   I had proof something was going wrong. No follow up was done on this and it   was a big argument during my Probation Review meeting which was not noted in   the report and couldn’t be witnessed by anyone as no representative was   allowed. This is a very big argument in my defence.

On a team level, the Employer states that all cases should   be divided fairly and equally between all agents. He has proof of many   complaints by himself and other colleagues that this was not the case, that his   team leader refused to take action after being informed about this on several   occasions and that even HR was aware of this but refused to take action. If   one agent, himself, does 30 cases, while another does only 10, who has more   chance in getting a negative CSAT (called a DSAT fyi)? If an agent gets   assigned more email cases while others get only phone cases, who will have a   lower CSAT? If the person on a team assigning the cases assigns you several   cases with issues that are known to cause a DSAT while others get cases they   can just close without taking any action, leading automatically to a positive   CSAT, who’s being treated unfairly?

If team leader and HR are aware of this, if this then   leads to a PIP AND if they don’t investigate your failed PIP then   according to their own procedures but fire you instead, surely that’s an   unfair way to get dismissed?

A few additional notes:

The quality of his cases was one of the highest in the   team according to the Quality Assessor.

There were only a few issues of absenteeism during the   first week he worked there trying to find his way to work.

He was put on an Attendance Improvement Plan which he   passed without problems. No other issues of lateness arose until his last   week of work. The day before and the day of his Probation Review he was 3   minutes late, well under the 5 minute limit that was communicated. As one   other member of the team never got a warning or AIP, despite being late for   up to 10 minutes each day while living nearby, is another example of how the   team he was part of was run. Complaints were filed with the team leader and   HR about this to no avail.

He was treated unfairly. There was failure to follow   procedures. He disagreed with the reasons/explanations given to him. He was   denied representation. Others knew what was going on in the company. He is   seeking compensation. He has not found work since. He has applied for a lot   of jobs.

The Complainant’s employment was terminated during his   probationary period when he failed to meet the standards of work   required. His contract of employment   provided for a six month probationary period. In March 2016 following an   alleged incident of unprofessional communication he was issued with a verbal   warning following an investigation and disciplinary hearing. He was advised   that he could appeal the sanction but he did not. On 23^rd March he   was advised in writing that his probation was being extended by three months.   He was warned that failure to make significant improvement could mean that he   would not pass his probation and this could lead to his dismissal. On 28^th   March 2016 he was placed on a four week performance improvement plan. A weekly review was set up together with a   three hour live monitoring /workflow refresher session each week. On 26^th   April 2016 he was informed that he had failed the first two weeks of his   performance improvement plan. He   passed week three but failed week four. On 18^th May 2016 his   manager reviewed the performance improvement plan. On-going concern with   quality, lack of channel preference adherence, ring back exhaustion and   workflow adherence despite frequent coaching and feedback were highlighted.   On 24^th May he attended a review meeting having been invited on 19^th.   On the following day he was advised that his employment was to be terminated,   due to his failure to meet the standards required during the probationary   period of employment.

It is the Employer’s position that he received regular   feedback and had one-to-one meetings. There was informal support also. The Employer   extended his probation to give him a further opportunity to achieve the   required standard. It was made clear to him that his failure to pass his   probation would lead to his dismissal. They used all support mechanisms but   regrettably his performance and conduct did not meet the required standard   for him to pass his probation. He had a language skill that was difficult to   source. So they did not take lightly its decision to terminate the employment.   He was treated fairly. He was given   significant opportunity to improve his performance. At no time did he utilise   the grievance procedure. He delayed almost twelve months to appeal this   decision, which is unreasonable. This complaint is rejected.

I note that the Complainant’s contract provided for a   six-month probation.

I note that the contract stated that regular reviews would   take place during the probationary period.

I note that it stated “should   you prove unsuitable your employment may be terminated”.

For the above stated reasons I recommend that this   complaint should fail.

WRONGFUL DISMISSAL