Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Sale Representative

A Limited Company

Representatives

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00027971-001

25/04/2019

The complainant commenced working for the respondent as a sales manager on the 15th of January 2018. The complainant performed to a very high standard and was meeting his weekly and monthly targets. His performance was never an issue. His ‘lack of performance’ was never brought to his attention. Senior management never informed him that they were not happy with his performance. Furthermore, the complainant was never asked to attend a meeting with regards to his performance. On the 12th of November the complainant was called into a meeting with the financial controller. During that meeting he was told that he was being let go and that he would receive a month's notice. No further explanation was forthcoming. He was not afforded an opportunity to improve his performance nor was he put on a performance improvement plan. He was simply instructed to leave the building immediately. The complainant found the entire experience degrading and humiliating. He is of the belief that he was not treated fairly and that his employment law rights were ignored by the respondent.

Contrary to what the complainant has alleged, the respondent states that the complainant met with the respondent on numerous occasions. The first meeting was at the end of quarter 1. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the complainant’s performance. The targets for that quarter were €33,000 and the complainant was 7% short of that.

On the 24th of July, the end of Q2, the complainant again met with the respondent to discuss the figures. The complainant was €14,000 behind his target, Making the shortfall for the first half of the year €47,000.00 Having carried out an analysis of the complainant's work it became apparent that he was not taking on enough new accounts. In the UK they were taking on approximately 30 new accounts per quarter.

In July, it was decided to meet with the complainant on a monthly basis and to reduce the annual target by €40,000.00. The respondent met with the complainant again on the 19th of September. At this juncture he was even further behind. The respondent asked the complainant if the complainant was in his shoes what he would do? The complainant said he would give himself 3 months to prove that he could meet his targets. The respondent agreed to give him a further three months.

The respondent reviewed the figures again in November. Again, the complainant was behind. The complainant was coming to the end of his probationary period and on that basis the respondent made the decision to let him go based on his consistent poor performance. His contract of employment stated that he was entitled to notice of one month. He was paid his notice.

Having carefully considered the evidence of both the complainant and the respondent I am satisfied that the complainant was underperforming on a consistent basis. I did not find the evidence of the complainant credible. It is clear, contrary to his evidence, that he was given ample opportunity to improve his performance but failed to do so. The respondent was well within its rights to terminate the complainant’s contract of employment as he was still in his probationary period. In all of the circumstances, I am not going to make a recommendation in this matter.

For the reasons set out above, I am not making a recommendation in this matter.