Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

HR Administrator

Food Production Enterprise

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00025101-001

16/01/2019

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00025101-002

16/01/2019

The Complainant’s employment was terminated during her probationary period and she claims it was done so unfairly.

The Complainant presented a submission together with documentation and gave her own oral evidence.

The Respondent presented me with a submission based on what was outlined in the Workplace Relations complaint Form.

I have carefully considered the evidence adduced in the course of this hearing The Complainant came to the Respondent Food Group as an experienced HR candidate. The Complainant was delighted to get the position in what she understood to be a premier employer offering great opportunities and progression.

At the outset I accept that the Respondent was at a disadvantage by not knowing exactly what the Complainant’s case was until such time as she presented her case at hearing. It is to the credit of the Respondent witness and representation that they allowed the matter proceed to finality

For reasons which have not been explained, the Complainant provoked and/or irked another longer serving member of staff EJ who appeared to go out of her way to diminish and belittle the Complainant’s attempts to fit in. Whilst the Complainant got on with all other team members – including her line Manager Mr. K – she could not find favour with EJ who was hostile and angry with the Complainant form the start.

The Complainant was on a probationary period and I accept, even though she worked in HR, that it was not easy for her to make a formal complaint when her priority was to demonstrate her competence, her willingness and her general good demeanour. That said, I do accept that in the privacy of her one and one meetings with Mr K she did air her issues and was told that things would settle down.

To her surprise some five months into her probationary period the Complainant was advised that her performance was not on target and Mr.K presented her with a litany of problems which appeared to have cropped up since the last meeting. The Complainant was shocked and very upset. The Complainant rejected the complaints outlined and questioned the source of the information as Mr. K was not generally in the office and therefore could not have personally observed her time keeping, her phone usage and her break taking. The Complainant suspected that EJ had the ear of Mr. K in this regard.  

The Complainant set out her defence to each of the allegations made and in an email to Mr. K she considered that she had successfully rebutted each of the points that had been raised. In this same email the Complainant indicated that she had to now consider bringing a Grievance. I fully accept that the Complainant had previously allowed the behaviour of EJ to go unchecked, but now had to consider the impact it was having on her professional reputation.

Despite her robust defence of her position, the Probationary period was extended by a further three months by Mr. K.

There followed a few meetings between Mr. K and herself wherein he suggested that she should move on and consider the matter as in the past and I believe that the Complainant was re-assured that despite the unnecessary probation extension she was still held in some regard.

Then, on the 17th of July 2018 and without warning and pre-amble the Complainant’s employment was terminated because “things weren’t working out”. There was no lead up to this decision and there was no warning that this decision was being considered. The Complainant was not allowed to return to her desk and was walked out of the building. It is not clear if there was any Appeal process.

On balance I found the Complainant to have been a credible witness who was treated very badly by this Employer without justification and without rationale. There was no evidence or paperwork or document presented which showed why Mr. K had reached this decision. The Complainant was very badly affected by the treatment in terms of her own health and self-esteem. I accepted her evidence in this regard though cannot give any comfort. I fully accept that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed and go further say that she was treated very badly by this Employer.

I note that the Complainant found alternative employment some two to three months after her employment was terminated and her losses have been mitigated.

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

CA-00025101-001       - I find that the worker herein is entitled to be compensated for the manner of her dismissal and I recommend that she should be paid the lump sum of €9,500.00

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00025101-002

- The Complainant did not have 52 weeks of employment and therefore did not qualify for relief under this Act.