Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Customer Relations Advisor

An IT Company

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-00016880-001

17/01/2018

The Claimant has presented her case to the WRC in respect of her termination of employment during her probation period. She took issue with the procedures relied on by her former employer and sought a recommendation for an opportunity for a second chance at the Company.

The Employer was not able to concede to this request and contended that the claimant had been given every support and assistance during her employment to meet the key performance indicators surrounding customer satisfaction.

Both parties were represented at hearing, the claimant by her Solicitor and the Employer by the Employee Relations Manager. The Employer offered a written submission and the Claimant relied on an oral submission with supplementary documents.

The Claimant commenced work as an At Home Customer Relations Advisor in February 2017. This was her first experience of working from home. She received training and coaching to help her in her role. She had a defined difficulty in managing some aspects of her role and received further training.

The Claimant explained that on reflection, she had three Supervisors during her five-month employment and she found this unsettling and confusing. She had received positive feedback on her performance in addition to pointers on improvements needed.

The Claimant submitted that her former employer had placed her on a Corrective action plan in June 2017 and she continued to have difficulty with an aspect of the role. Her employment was terminated one month later. The Claimant was surprised by this action as she understood she was improving but had sufficient time to address aspects of her role.

The Claimant appealed this decision to an Area Manager. This was heard on August 14 and did not alter the outcome.

The Claimants Solicitor made submissions that the claimant remained dissatisfied with her experience surrounding termination and wished to explore an opportunity to restore the employment relationship as she had enjoyed her work and understood that she had obtained a high customer satisfaction rating. The Claimant had liked working from home and was currently unemployed.

The Employer employs more than 5,000 people in Ireland, 1,500 work in “at home settings”. The Employee Relations Manager on behalf of the company outlined that the claimant had failed her probation and her dismissal was justified. The Company had invested considerable training, coaching and support on a weekly and monthly basis to assist the claimant in her role. The Company took issue with the claimant’s assertions regarding “insufficient time to address the performance concerns”. He submitted concise details of the range of supports directed towards the claimant over the five-month period of employment.

The Employer outlined that the claimant was subject to a 6-month probation period in her contract of employment. The Company identified issues which needed corrective action in her performance and instigated a plan to address these with the claimant. The Claimant failed to demonstrate the skills and capability required to perform her role.

The Employer contended that the claimant had the benefit of a 5-week training period at the commencement of her employment. She had ongoing difficulties with aspects of her role which were not remedied through coaching, corrective action plan or reviews and her performance was reviewed at a probationary meeting on 26 July ,2017. The Claimant was found to have failed her probation and her position was terminated.

The Claimant submitted an appeal on August 3 which was heard by the Area Manager, which was not upheld. The Appeals Manager had concluded that the claimant had been provided with appropriate additional coaching and support to address her performance. This was communicated to the claimant on 11 September, 2017.

The Employer concluded that the company had acted always in accordance with the principles of natural justice and fair procedures and the claimant was heard at all meetings to address her performance and her comments were considered before any final decision was made. The Company followed its own procedures.

I have considered both party’s submissions in this case. I was struck by the forthright submissions of both parties. It was clear to me that the Company was seeking to emphasise the importance of high quality customer service during the claimant’s employment. It was also clear to me that the claimant was struggling firstly with an acclimatisation to home working and secondly with the exigencies of the business.

I accept that the Employer invested a considerable amount of resources in training and development in this case. I appreciate that the Claimant believed that she fell between the cracks of the “style differences “of three separate managers, however, I am not convinced that this was a sufficient justification for the variances in her performance.

I note that the claimant clearly recalled struggling with her targets, yet she did not raise a grievance in that regard. I also note that the corrective action initiated by the Employer in June 2017, while unsuccessful did not manifest into a disciplinary setting which may have crystallised the enormity of the situation for the claimant. I note that the claimant was introduced to the Policy on June 29, 2017 but nothing developed from that prior to termination.

A period of probation is a valuable window in any employment relationship. I am satisfied that the Employer engaged in a supportive probation period in this case.

Sometime has now passed since the employment relationship has concluded in this case. During the hearing, I noted that the claimant had incorporated her wish to restore her employment relationship in her notice of appeal. I noted that the claimant had not relied on this submission during her oral appeal hearing. It was clear that the Employer had not heard oral submissions in this regard. This allowed me to conclude that the appeals process may have been incomplete from both party’s perspectives.

I canvassed the party’s views on a potential way forward in that regard and I found a very positive response in that regard.

I have found merit in this dispute.

I recommend that both parties re-engage within 4 weeks of this recommendation on a strictly without prejudice basis to consider the following action plan to conclude the Appeal Hearing.

The Claimant should prepare a detailed oral/written submission to support her desire for re-employment. This should address tangible proposals on rebuilding rather than a rear-view analysis of her employment.

The Employer should afford the claimant this meeting on a face to face basis. I appreciate that the Claimant was an at home worker, however, our WRC hearing took place on a face to face basis and I felt that the parties benefitted from this direct engagement. The parties should also consider representation.

I acknowledge the generosity of spirit exhibited by both parties in this case and I make this recommendation in full and final settlement of the claim.

Dated:     14th June 2018

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patsy Doyle

Key Words:

Termination of Employment during probation.