ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION/DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00024168
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | An Employee | A Company |
Representatives | Self represented | Stephen McNamara |
Complaints:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Acts | CA-00030796-001 | 09/09/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00030796-002 | 09/09/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 14/11/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969 and Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994, following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
Background:
The Complainant contends that she was unfairly dismissed from her employment and that she did not receive a written contract of full terms and conditions of employment. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant was employed as Payroll Administrator from 24th June 2019 to 15th August 2019. On 8th August 2919 at 7.45pm the Owner of the Company called in to the office and told her that she was being let go as there was some re-structuring being done and they needed someone more qualified to do the role. A new employee then came in on 13th August 2019 and the Complainant was told she could leave a few days earlier than her notice expiry date. The Complainant also contends that although she received a statement of core terms, contrary to Section 3 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994, she was not furnished with written terms of employment. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
Evidence given by the HR Administrator on behalf of the company was that the Complainant was employed as a Payroll Administrator and there were a number of roles contained therein. It was submitted that the Complainant was unable to perform the role and quickly became overwhelmed by the levels of work involved. She needed a high level of support which was provided by two staff members. Early on in the period, backlogs developed and during the main period of employment the number of hours worked by the Complainant was in or around 400 when 150 would have been the norm. The Managing Director took the decision to terminate the Complainant’s employment as it was felt that she was unable to fulfil the duties of the position or within the required timeframe. It is submitted that the Complainant was on a ‘trial period’ and this was stated in her contract. |
Recommendation (CA-00030796-001)
I note that the Complainant worked for the Respondent for in or around 7 weeks. The Owner of the Company, who was not available to attend the hearing, provided a written statement that she explained to the Complainant the difficulties she felt the Complainant was having, citing examples of work not completed, inaccurate work and backlogs. She told the Complainant that she was a willing and diligent employee but that the role needed to be undertaken to a standard which she was unable to complete. This in effect was a performance appraisal. However, it did not leave any room for the employee to improve her performance. While I note there was a trial or probationary period, the Labour Court has found in similar cases, that even where an employee is on probation, they are entitled to due process. In this case, no such process took place. The Complainant was not given a hearing or right to appeal the decision to dismiss and these basic tenets of due process were not afforded to her. I therefore conclude that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed from her employment. I note the very short service, and that the Complainant may not have been suited to the pressurised job. I recommend that the Respondent offer the Complainant a net sum of €1,040 compensation to draw a line under this dispute.
Decision (CA-00030796-002)
In relation to her complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994, I note the Complainant received core terms shortly after commencement. I do not find her complaint to be well founded.
Dated: 31st March 2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham
Key Words:
Unfair Dismissal during probation. |