Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Shop Supervisor

A Service Station

Representatives

Citizen Information Service

Ibec

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

CA-00032798-001

09/12/2019

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

CA-00032798-002

09/12/2019

The complainant started working for the respondent on 22 July 2019 and was dismissed on 11 October 2019. She claims the dismissal was unfair and she was not paid her full notice entitlement. As she had less than one year’s service the claim for unfair dismissal is taken under the Industrial Relations Act.

The complainant submits she started working on 22 July 2019 as a Shop Supervisor and was paid €414.37 per week. She was provided with almost no training and was forced to complete e-learning modules in half the assigned time because of staff shortages. She did not receive a copy of the Performance Management System. Planned two-monthly reviews, as required by her contract, did not take place. There is no record of alleged complaints against her in her employee file. She signed for a cash shortage on 19 September 2019 but was not given appropriate follow-up training. She was not told her contract would be terminated before any of the issues were addressed, nor were any procedures followed. She was dismissed on 11 October 2019.

When dismissed she was, according to her contract of employment, entitled to one week’s notice pay but was only paid two days.

The complainant commenced employment on 22 July 2019, she received on the job training and attended a one-day induction course on 12 August 2019. She had a performance review on 19 September 2019 which identified areas of concern; cash handling procedures and speed of tasks performance. She was retrained but continued to struggle with these tasks. She also received numerous customer complaints as she was unable to clear queues in a reasonable time. The complainant failed to reach an acceptable standard of performance during her probationary period and was dismissed on 11 October 2019.

The respondent states the complainant received four days’ notice pay and is entitled to a further day’s pay of €82.88

CA-00032798-001 – The Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act requires an employee to have at least 13 weeks continuous service before they have a statutory notice entitlement under this legislation. The complainant had not reached thirteen weeks when her employment was terminated and therefore she is unable to succeed in making a claim and the complaint is not well founded. For the sake of completeness I have considered this issue under the Industrial Relations claim as it directly relates to her dismissal.

CA-00032798-002 – Unfair Dismissal. The complainant took this claim under the Industrial Relation Act, as she had less than the one year’s service required by the Unfair Dismissals Act.

At the hearing the respondent explained the complainant’s shortcomings against their time per task template and went through the meetings they had with her to explain these and the opportunities given to the complainant to address them; including retraining on the till with an Assistant Manager. Despite several conversations she remained slow to count money and took too long to deal with customers, resulting in queues. A decision was made that the complainant was unsuitable for the respondent’s business. She was told of this on 11 October 2019.

The complainant contends she did not receive adequate training, was given contradictory advice on timings for tasks and did not see the employee handbook. There was a suggestion that she could move to a quieter garage but nothing was done about this. She also claims the retraining was inadequate and she saw no reports of customer complainants.

Firstly, I note that dismissals during a probationary period must still be carried out fairly, shortcomings notified and an opportunity to improve given before any decision is taken. I have considered all the evidence and see that an appraisal took place on 19 September when her shortcomings were identified. I also accept the respondent’s evidence that subsequent retraining took place on the till. However, despite being spoken to on several occasions the complainant did not reach the performance levels required by the respondent. It appears that the complainant struggled with the work and wanted more training and more time.

I conclude that the complainant was advised of her shortcomings and given an opportunity to reach the required performance level but she failed to do that. In these circumstances I find the dismissal was not unfair.

CA-00032798-001 – Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act - As the complainant did not have at least 13 weeks continuous service I find the complaint is not well founded.

CA-00032798-002 – Industrial Relations Act - I conclude the complainant’s dismissal was not unfair but I do conclude that when she left her final payment did not include the correct notice period payment. This was short by one day and I recommend the respondent pay the complainant €82.88 as soon as possible.

Key Words: minimum notice minimum service