Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Purchasing Officer

A Services Provider

Representatives

Jimmy Jordan

Aislin Reid IBEC

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00038630-001

23/06/2020

The complainant commenced employment as a Procurement Officer with the Respondent on 6th January 2020 and was dismissed on 9th June 2020. He claimed that there was no reason given to him for his dismissal.

The complainant was informed by CEO of the respondent in August 2019 that there would be a role for a Procurement Officer becoming available within the organisation. The complainant subsequently applied for the role and following a series of four interviews, was informed that he was successful.

He commenced employment on 9th January 2020 and understood that he would have full oversight over procurement in the organisation’s different offices. Four weeks after his appointment however, the Respondent appointed a Finance Director who subsequently made decisions and sent emails surrounding purchasing without his knowledge. He was also told that the Finance Director was taking control of procurement and stated that the function was subsequently outsourced.

The complainant asserted that he performed well in his role and highlighted that the Board of the respondent applauded the procurement team for their excellent work during the covid period.

He was dismissed in June 2020 and was given no reason for his dismissal. Access to his laptop was removed the evening prior to his dismissal without his knowledge or consent.

The respondent alleged that the complainant underperformed in his role and failed to adhere to reasonable instruction from management from when he started his employment. A number of examples were highlighted by the respondent:

·       Despite the complainant having ordered Covid masks which did not meet minimum standards, he misrepresented events and altered an email which would have led the Board to believe that it was the Finance Director who ordered the masks rather than the complainant himself.

·       The complainant also ordered hand sanitizer for distribution despite it being clearly stated that it was a surface cleaner on the container. This resulted in a number of people having a very bad reaction when used on their hands. Despite the Finance Director informing the complainant to order a different hand sanitiser, the complainant refused to follow her instruction.

·       The complainant failed to attend an important meeting on 29th May despite having previously agreed to attend.

·       It was also highlighted that the complainant failed to adhere to standard working hours and that he frequently disappeared from the office without informing his line manager.

Despite numerous meetings with the complainant, he failed to improve his performance and the respondent was left with no choice but to terminate his employment at the end of the probationary period.

While I believe that there were substantive reasons behind the respondent’s decision to dismiss the complainant, I find that the procedures adopted fell short of the standard set out in SI 146/2000. Specifically, I am not satisfied that it was made abundantly clear to him that his position would be terminated at the end of his probationary period if he did not show the required improvement in performance alleged by the respondent. Accordingly, I find that the dismissal was procedurally unfair.

Taking all of the circumstances of this case into account, I recommend in favour of the complainant and find that the respondent should pay compensation in the amount of €1,000 in respect of this dismissal.