Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

An Employee

A Credit Union

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00028093-001

30/04/2019

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

CA-00028093-002

30/04/2019

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent for a period of over 4 months at the end of which she was dismissed. She contends that she was unfairly dismissed. The second dispute/complaint CA-00028093-002 which was a complaint of bullying and harassment was withdrawn at hearing.

The Complainant started work with the Respondent as a Senior Loans Officer on a fixed term contract from 5th June 2018 for one year. She is a qualified Financial Advisor with experience in Banking and Insurance. At the beginning of her period of employment the Complainant was enjoying her work and often worked long hours to complete additional tasks. She was aware of and raised with some a number of practices that were outdated and non compliant. She believes this may have mitigated against her. A new CEO took up duty and relations with her were sometimes hostile. The Complainant had a probationary review meeting on 17th October 2018. Up to then she had no inclination that there were any performance issues and presumed the meeting was a formality.     However, the meeting appeared to her to be a ‘dressing down’ rather than a review, where she was told she was to do as she was told by the CEO. The meeting was short and no actual performance issues were raised in the Complainant’s recollection.   The following day the Complainant was extremely surprised to receive a letter to state that her probation was being extended. The complainant contends that she received very little training and that criticism of her not filing reports correctly was due to this lack of training.   Subsequently, the Complainant received a letter on 31st October 2018 terminating her employment.   The Complainant contends that she was not afforded due process and that the dismissal was unfair. The Respondent in their letter of dismissal cited meetings held on 10th September, 27th September, 3rd October, 15th October, 16th October and 17th October 2018.   It is submitted that these are dates ‘dressed up’ to look like the Complainant’s performance issues were discussed with her when in fact no such meetings took place. It is further submitted that the dismissal was in contravention of the Respondent’s own disciplinary policy and procedures which provides for graduating discipline allowing for opportunity to improve. This was denied the Complainant and she was dismissed without fair procedure or due process.

The Complainant was dismissed fairly during her probationary period owing to the serious level of incompetence she demonstrated in the role of Senior Loans Officer, to such an extent that her actions posed a serious liability to the Credit Union and its operations. Throughout her employment, the Respondent sought to assist her through regular meetings and training. This was led in a fair and objective manner by the Manager. The Complainant was afforded a number of weeks to settle into her role. However, by September 2018 she had yet to provide any new business development ideas despite it being a principle responsibility within her role. When this was raised and other issues of performance the Complainant became highly emotional and defensive and sought to deflect and personalise matters. In October calls were received from irate members regarding loan applications and the failure of the Complainant to return their calls. Other serious issues occurred such as loan documents being locked away and the Complainant having taken the key offsite. On 15th October the CEO met with the Complainant to discuss items of concern and discuss some basic fundamental skills needed in assessing and reporting requirements.   In line with her contract of employment, the Complainant was employed subject to the successful completion of a 6 month probationary period which could be extended up to 11 months. The contract also provides for termination within the probationary period which “shall be at the discretion of the company and in the event of such termination you will receive one week’s notice”.                                                                                             On 16th October 2018 the Complainant attended her probationary review meeting. The outcome of this was to extend the Complainant’s probation to the end of February 2019, owing to the large gaps in performance, with a further review on 10th December 2018.   The review meeting demonstrated the Complainant’s poor levels of financial compliance acumen and her simplistic understanding of business development. Separately and in line with normal risk and compliance requirements, the Risk & Compliance Officer carried out a Loans Quality Assurance Review for the period July – September 2018 which identified a number of serious errors. A full review was then carried out of the Complainant’s loans. This identified a volume of breaches of compliance so serious that the risk to the Credit Union could no longer be tolerated. Owing to the liability posed by the Complainant to the Credit Union, the Respondent had no option but to dismiss her on 31st October 2018.   The CEO met with her and advised her that the Respondent was not in a position to maintain her employment. The decision was confirmed in writing and the Complainant was advised of her right to appeal to the Chairperson. She chose not to appeal.                                                                                         It is submitted that the Complainant was fairly dismissed in the circumstances.

The Respondent gave cogent evidence of the performance issues experienced in relation to the Complainant. I note there were attempts to assist her to meet the standards required for such a senior position. It appears the Complainant was unable to perform at the standard required by the Respondent. However, I note that following the probation review meeting on 16th October 2018, the Complainant’s probation period was extended to February 2019 with a review to have been carried out in December 2018. This seems a reasonable approach taken by the Employer.                   To then move to dismiss as they did without fair warning, right to be heard, right of representation or prior warning of the gravity of the situation goes against all the fair procedures and due process as outlined in the Respondent’s own procedures and the statutory instrument S.I. 147 of 2000.                       I find the dismissal to have been an unfair dismissal due to lack of fair procedures.   I note the Complainant contributed somewhat to the situation in which she found herself. I consider compensation to be the appropriate remedy and I recommend the Respondent pay to the Complainant the sum of €5,000 compensation for her unfair dismissal.

Unfair dismissal during probation.