ADJ-00011425

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Python Developer

A Technology Company

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00015292-001

24/Oct/2017

The worker was employed by the respondent as a python developer on the 25th of November 2014.   He was on a 6-month probationary period which was extended to 9 months after which he was dismissed. He is claiming that he was unfairly dismissed.

The worker said that he started working for the employer on the 25th of November 2014, as a Python Developer and he was dismissed on the 11th of September 2015. He said he worked in Germany and he had an excellent recommendation letter from his previous employer. He was employed by the employer on a 6-month probation period. He worked as part of a team programming, developing new products and finding solutions for malfunctioning software. He said that he spent the first six months doing extra hours to meet deadlines which were wrongly estimated. He said that some members of the team did not collaborate with the team.

In May 2015, he was called to a performance meeting. He said that the general outcome of the meeting was that he was a not performing and there was a lack of trust amongst the team. His probation was extended. He said that he was surprised because up to this there was no complaint about his work.

He said he asked his colleagues if they had raised any concerns about his work and nobody had raised concerns. After this this his situation got worse and some of his colleagues on the team started to misbehave. If he proposed a solution he was screamed at as they did not want his solution implemented. He felt that members of the team were corroborating with management to bring him down. He said that he had a second probation meeting around the end of July and he proposed to the manager that he set goals for him. Together they made out a set of goals and the worker believed he successfully achieved these goals.   However, the line manager said he was not successful. The worker said that all the quality standards were met and his work was sent to the clients and it was installed on the productions system so it must have been successful. His manager then added a second task which he also achieved.   He felt that some of the team were becoming more aggressive towards him. One of them proposed that the worker carry out a mock test which would take 3 months to set up but he was requested to do it in an afternoon. He said that he had to work additional hours to achieve the targets.   He said that he knew he was going to be dismissed despite meeting all the goals. He said that for the last two weeks of his employment there was nothing he could do to keep his employment. He submits that the dismissal was unfair.

The employer said that the worker’s claim in respect of his dismissal has not been referred within a reasonable timeframe. The worker was dismissed on the 11th of September 2017 and he referred his complaint on the 24th of October 2017. It was submitted that a 12-month timeframe from the date of the alleged infringement is a reasonable time within which to refer a case. 

The employers case is that the worker did not meet the required standard for the job. He was employed as a python developer and his role involved working as part of a software team to develop new software functionality for users as well as fixing defects and delivering these to end customers. A high level of in-team collaboration and inter-team liaison was required. The worker was employed on a 6-month probationary period and they reserved the right to extend this period. Formal and informal meetings were held with the worker from May to September 2015 to discuss his performance. His probationary period was extended at a review meeting on the 19th of May 2015 until the 28th of August 2015. A number of concerns were brought to his attention around not being an effective team member, lack of collaboration and not listening to advice and direction which was leading to mistakes. He was warned if he failed to achieve the required standard he could be dismissed.

A further review meeting was held with the worker on the 5th of August 2015, and he was again warned about his performance and his probation period was extended to the 11th of September 2015 to allow for a two week holiday he was taking. On the workers return from holidays a two week Performance Improvement Plan was put in place outlining the specific work requirements he was expected to achieve in the final two weeks of his probation. A further review meeting was held on the 11th of September 2015 and it was decided to dismiss the worker for failing to meet the required improvements and for these reasons he failed to pass his probation. It was submitted that the worker was fairly dismissed for failing to meet the requirements of his role. He was given every opportunity to address the shortcomings in his performance which were brought to his attention and he failed to do so.

The first matter raised by the employer concerned the fact that the worker referred his complaint to the WRC over two years since his dismissal. As the Industrial Relations Acts has no statutory time frame within which a complaint must be referred, I am satisfied it is a valid referral under Section 13 of the Act.

The worker was dismissed because he failed to pass his probation. He was informed in writing prior to his dismissal of the issues with his work performance and his probation was extended. He was invited to attend performance review meetings and he was given an opportunity to improve. A PIP was put in place and he was given an opportunity to perform certain tasks but he failed to achieve the required improvement. I am satisfied that the worker was given every opportunity to pass his probation, but his performance did not did not improve sufficiently. For these reasons, I find that the worker was not unfairly dismissed.

In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and in view of my findings above I recommend that the worker was not been unfairly dismissed by the employer.

Industrial Relations, time limits, unfair dismissal, failed to pass probation