Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Apprentice Electronic Systems Installer

Security Company

Representatives

Joe Harris

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00025102-001

18/01/2019

The Worker submits:

The Worker was employed by the Employer as an apprentice electronic systems installer on a four year contract.

The Worker started in this employment on the 13th September 2018. The Worker was classed by the Employer as an adult apprentice due to his age.

On the 12th of January 2019 the Worker was called to head office and told that the Employer had decided to terminate his employment contract as an apprentice. No reason or explanation was given to the Worker as to why this was happening.

The Worker asked if this decision was anything to do with his standard of work to which the Employer replied it had nothing to do with his work. The Employer then shook the Worker’s hand and apologised.

0ne week later money was transferred into the Worker’s account in lieu of notice. This amount was at the apprentice rate of €7.17 euro per hour.

The Worker submits that an apprentice contract differs from most other employment contracts and in this case it was a four year contract which was terminated early with no apparent reason by the Employer.

The Worker is seeing compensation of four years’ salary.

The Worker was employed by the Employer as an Electronic Security Systems Apprentice on 14th September 2018.

At the time of interview and subsequent offer of the position it was made clear to the Worker that the offer was subject to a probationary period whereby it would give the Employer the opportunity to assess the Worker’s suitability for the apprenticeship scheme within their company. This was clearly outlined in both the contract of employment and the employee handbook which were both issued to the Worker.

Over the course of the Worker’s probationary period his suitability for the role was assessed by the two directors of the Employer company and a qualified engineer employed by the Employer. The Worker was given regular feedback regarding his performance and his general aptitude for the profession. It was the collective view that while the Worker had been offered the opportunity over his 17 weeks with the Employer to demonstrate his capabilities and ability to progress, he unfortunately did not display the attributes that would be expected in an apprentice in the trade. Therefore, it was agreed that the Worker’s apprenticeship could not be facilitated by the Employer.

One of the Directors held a meeting with the Worker on 14th January 2019 advising him that the Employer would not be able to continue with his apprenticeship programme and in the interests of fairness and in line with the Employer’s commitment to employees advised the Worker he would be paid one week's wage in lieu of notice.

SOLAS were notified of the termination of the Workers apprenticeship with the company on 16th January

At no point had the Worker been informed that he was doing well prior to the termination.

It is the Respondent’s position that a number of concerns had been highlighted to the Worker as they arose by qualified engineers and the company's two directors.

I find that it was reasonable for the Employer to include a probationary clause in the Worker’s contract and I accept that an apprenticeship is no different to any other employment in this regard.

Whilst an employee with less than twelve months of service is not covered by the Unfair Dismissals Acts, the fact that they may be on probation does not negate their entitlement to fair procedures in relation to grievance and disciplinary matters.

In a recent Labour Court determination concerning an employee of the Park Hotel Kenmare (LCR21798) who was dismissed while on probation, the Court found that:

“Where an employee is considered unsuitable for permanent employment, the Court accepts that an employer has the right, during a probationary period, to decide not to retain that employee in employment. However, the Court takes the view that this can only be carried out where the employer adheres strictly to fair procedures.

… The Court has consistently held the view that it is imperative that an employer in a dismissal case must not only show that there were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal but also that fair and proper procedures were followed before the dismissal takes place. This requirement of procedural fairness is rooted in the common law concept of natural justice.”

It follows, therefore, that before a decision is made to dismiss an employee, an employer should first tell the employee of the respects in which he or she is failing to do the job adequately, warn the employee of the possibility of dismissal on this ground and give the employee an opportunity of improving their performance.

At the hearing, the Worker submitted that he was not aware that there were any issues about his performance and that the Employer had not discussed his performance with him.

The Respondent submitted that at no time was the Worker ever told that he was doing well.   In fact, he had been told on several occasions that he had no aptitude for the trade. The Employer was unable to provide any documentation in relation to the substance or the outcome of these conversations.

I find, therefore, that prior to his dismissal, the Worker was not made aware of any issues concerning his performance and, if such issues existed, he was not given the opportunity to address them.

I recommend that the Employer pay the Worker the sum of €2,500 in compensation for his unfair dismissal.

Dismissal whilst on probation