Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A credit and collections coordinator

A global construction business

Representatives

Eversheds Sutherland Solicitors

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00013144-001

16/08/2017

The respondent is a multinational company engaged in heavy industries and construction, with the European and Middle Eastern credit department based in Dublin. The complainant commenced employment as a credit and collections coordinator on November 1st 2016, on a salary of €38,000. She was dismissed on August 10th 2017 and she complains that her dismissal was unfair. She also complains that her treatment by one particular colleague resulted in her feeling depressed and unwell, and that her employer took no action to deal with this person’s behaviour. As she has less than one year of service, she brought her complaint under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act.

From the day she commenced in her role, the complainant said that a colleague in her department was difficult to work with. In this document, we will refer to this person as Ms X. When she started, the complainant said that she was advised not to make Ms X angry and it appeared to her that there was some history to this behaviour.

Having completed a certain task, the complainant said that Ms X sent her an e mail and copied it to others, including one of the company’s directors, asking why she had done a job in a particular manner. She told her manager about this, but she said that he didn’t help and she got no support from the colleagues in her area. She said that one colleague didn’t speak to her at all, but sent instant messages to communicate. Because of this treatment, she said that she became ill with stress-induced asthma and she was out of work for two weeks.

As an example of how she was excluded, the complainant said that she was invited to go to a meeting in Germany. She was informed that she would be accompanied by Ms X, and she said that she knew that Ms X would have to book the flights, as she had a company credit card. When she returned after a few days’ leave, she discovered that Ms X booked just one flight, and the complainant didn’t end up going to the meeting. On another occasion, she arrived at work to find that none of her colleagues were in. She said that they didn’t tell her that they were all on leave for various reasons, and that Ms X had a hospital appointment.

In February 2017, the complainant said that she went for an interview for an alternative role and she also contacted her manager from her former job. She said she was doubting herself and she was contemplating leaving, but ultimately, she said that she concluded that she was “not a quitter” and she decided against leaving.

In the course of her employment, the complainant said that she had three reviews with her manager, in March, May and August 2017. She said that the reviews didn’t go as she expected and concern was expressed about how much sick leave she had taken. At the reviews, she said that she was informed that she was “lacking this, that and the other,” but she did not specify what exactly she was lacking from a performance perspective.   She said at that the second review, her manager mentioned said that her team members complained about her and the fact that she left work at 5.00pm every evening. After the third review, the complainant said she was coming to work every day with having woken up with “a dread in her stomach.” She said she was doubting all her actions, checking and re-checking herself, anticipating that some error would be discovered. Eventually, she had a meeting with the HR Manager and told her that she was very unhappy in the job and that she was thinking about leaving.

Coming up to August 2017, the complainant said that she was given more responsibilities, including responsibility for the company’s Russian account. Ms X was supposed to conduct a handover, but the complainant said that this just consisted of three e mails and a list of sales people.   She said that she “muddled through,” with Ms X complaining that work was being delegated back to her. She said that she was stressed out at this time, and she spoke to her manager, who attended the hearing. She said that she was keen to resolve outstanding issues on the accounts, but that on August 11th, she was informed that she was being let go.

The complainant said that her treatment by the respondent led to her feeling depressed from June 2017, when she went to her doctor. She said that she wasn’t given the information she needed to do her job, although she said that her manager helped her to find the information she needed. She said that he felt that there was a three against one situation in her department and this affected her performance. She said that it was “a gruesome 10 months.”

The complainant is a fluent German speaker and this is one of the reasons she was recruited, joining a team of 13 in the credit management department. Following the commencement of her employment on November 1st 2016, a mid-probation review meeting was held on March 2nd 2017. The complainant’s line manager, who we will refer to as Mr O, attended, as well as the HR Manager. At the meeting, a number of concerns were raised with the complainant with regard to her attendance, her performance and what her manager considered to be her negative attitude. In light of her significant absences, the complainant’s manager advised that her performance would continue to be assessed and that one to one meetings would take place for the remainder of her probation, which was due to end on May 1st 2017.

In March, the complainant requested a meeting with the HR Manager, at which she complained about some of her team members. At the hearing, the HR Manager said that Ms X is “very black and white” but that her behaviour did not amount to bullying. She also said that the complainant’s absences meant that work was delegated back to Ms X and other members of the team, and this was not well-received.   The HR Manager said that she advised the complainant how to manage what was often a pressurised working environment, where the task is to get customers to pay their debts. The HR Manager said that, after their meeting in March, the complainant did not raise any issues with her again.

At the second review of the complainant’s probation in May 2017, the attendance issue had improved significantly, but the complainant’s performance in her job was not meeting the expectations of her manager. It was noted that her communication skills were poor, and that she did not fully prepare for weekly meetings. With the HR Manager, the complainant’s manager decided to extend the complainant’s probation to give her a further opportunity to prove that she could do the job. In support of this, an experienced team member was assigned to assist her with operational and account management issues.

A final review meeting was held on August 11th 2017 at which the complainant was informed that there were ongoing, unresolved problems with her performance, attitude and communication skills and that several complaints had been received about her. The complainant responded that her team members did not like her, but she was informed that complaints about her communication skills had come from people outside her team.

In circumstances where there were ongoing significant concerns about the complainant’s communication skills, performance and negative attitude which had not been addressed during the probationary period, on August 11th, the complainant’s manager decided to terminate her employment. In accordance with her contract of employment, she was paid one month’s pay in lieu of notice and her health insurance premium was paid until the end of September 2017.

For the respondent, Ms McMahon disputed the allegation of bullying set out on the complaint form.   In March 2017, when the complainant sought a meeting with the HR Manager, a meeting promptly took place and the HR Manager offered advice about how the complainant might communicate more effectively with her team members. The complainant did not seek any further assistance from the HR Manager and she did not avail of the respondent’s grievance procedure or the Anti Bullying and Harassment Policy.

Ms McMahon said that the respondent vehemently disputes the complainant’s assertion that it tolerates “unprofessional and malicious behaviour of other employees” and It is the respondent’s case that the complainant was dismissed during her probation, which was extended from six to nine months due to problems with her performance and her communication skills.

The Facts

The facts in respect of this complaint are as follows:

Th complainant was recruited to undertake a role in an established team of credit control professionals, which required a degree of collaboration and an ability to work in a sometimes pressurised environment.

She found some of her new colleagues difficult to work, a situation that was not helped by her high level of absenteeism during the early weeks of her employment.

At a performance review in March 2017, the complainant’s attendance had improved, but there were still problems with her performance and communication. At a further meeting in May 2017, a decision was made to extend the complainant’s probation for a further three months.   At the hearing, she agreed that there had been “candid conversations” with her line manager about what was required of her to show that she was capable of carrying out each aspect of her job. At the hearing, her manager said that “the process was not designed to make you fail” and he said that he was there to help her. A colleague who was good at his job was assigned to help the complainant to improve on the aspects of the job she found difficult.

Documents submitted in evidence show that clear direction was given to the complainant by her line manager, setting out the aspects of her performance that had to be improved on, such as preparing for meetings, more active engagement in managing arrears and more positive collaboration with her team colleagues.

By August 2017, the improvement required to confirm the complainant in her role had not been achieved and her employment was terminated.

Following the meeting with the HR Manager in March 2017 at which the complainant expressed concerns about her relationship with her team, she never raised any further issues and she never made a complaint, either informally, or using the company’s grievance or bullying procedures.

Findings

Having considered all of these facts and, having listened carefully to the evidence submitted at the hearing, I find that the complainant was dismissed due to concerns that she was not capable of doing the job in the manner required by the company. Clearly, this is a difficult message for any employee to receive, but the purpose of the time spent on probation must be used to determine if an employee is a suitable fit for an organisation in the long term. It was clear that the complainant herself had doubts about this as early as February 2017, although she decided not to quit at that time.

I find also that, while she may have had difficulties with some of her colleagues, there is no evidence that any colleague intended to isolate or humiliate the complainant or that the relationships were so negative that I could find that bullying was taking place. It is apparent that the complainant is hurt and offended at being dismissed, but, having considered the evidence, I have reached the conclusion that her dismissal was not unfair.

As I have concluded that the complainant was not subject to bullying and she was not unfairly dismissed, I make no recommendation in respect of her complaint.

Dismissal, probation