Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Accommodation Assistant

Hotel

Representatives

 Self-Represented  

 No Appearance

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00032650-001

02/12/2019

The Worker commenced employment with the Employer on 19th August 2019. At all times her role was described as that of “accommodation assistant”. The Worker worked for a variable amount of hours per week and received an average weekly payment of €325.00. The Worker’s employment was terminated by the Employer on 1st November 2019, after just over two months of service.

On 2nd December 2019 the Worker referred the present dispute to the Commission.  Herein, she alleged that the manner of her dismissal was unfair towards her. She also disputed the rationale for dismissal offered by the Employer. In circumstances whereby no objection was received from the Employer within the statutory timeframe, the matter proceeded to be listed for hearing. On 17th February, the Employer stated that they would not be engaging with the dispute and did not intend to attend any hearings in relation to the same.

A hearing in relation to this matter was convened and finalised on 23rd April 2021. This hearing was conducted by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. No technical issues were experienced during the hearing. No issues as to my jurisdiction to hear the dispute were raised at any stage.

The Worker submitted that near the commencement of her employment, she believed that she was performing well. In the weeks following her appointment, her weekly hours were increased from 20 per week to 39 hours per week.

In October of 2019, the Worker began to experience difficulties in her role. She found that he department was frequently under-staffed, and she was forced to complete a greater amount of work in a shorter period of time. On 28th October, the Worker had a conversation with her line manager. In the course of this conversation, she was advised that she was not meeting the Employer’s standards. By response, she questioned what exactly these standards were and how she was failing to meet them. No response was received to this query On 1st November the Worker was invited to a meeting with the Employer’s HR manager. Here, she was advised that her work had failed to meet the Employer’s standard and that her employment was to be terminated. This termination was confirmed via correspondence dated 1st November. The Worker appealed this decision to the general manager. However, following an appeal hearing on 15th November, the Worker was informed that the original decision stood and that the dismissal was upheld.

The Worker submitted that the manner of her dismissal was unfair. She stated that she was never informed what the standards of work she apparently did not meet were. She stated that any problems with the standard of her work arose from the understaffing issues and the lack of experienced personnel to assist her. Finally, the Worker submitted that she believed the stated reason was not the actual rationale for her dismissal. In this regard, she stated that an issue had arisen between other staff members and a manager. She stated that she attempted to keep out of the issue but others attempted to bring her into the dispute. The Worker stated that she suspected that she was dismissed as she may have become a witness against this manager in future.

The Respondent or any representative of their behalf did not attend the hearing, nor did they submit any defence to the dispute in advance of the hearing. Having regard to the Employer’s correspondence of 17th February 2021, the matter proceeded in their absence.

With the present case, it is clear that the Worker performed well shortly after the commencement of her employment. However, it is clear that by late October issues had arisen regarding the standard of work being completed. In this regard I note the Worker’s uncontested evidence that this arose as a result of a lack of staff and, in particular, experienced staff. In this regard, I note that the Worker’s hours were increased after a few weeks of employment, indicating some level of satisfaction with her performance.  Following from the same, it is difficult to comprehend how the Worker’s performance could deteriorate in such a short period of time.

Notwithstanding the same, it is apparent that this issue was first raised with the Complainant on 28th October. She was duly dismissed on 1st November, two complete working days later. In the circumstances, it is abundantly clear that the Complainant was not given adequate time to seek to improve her performance. I also note that the specifics of the alleged underperformance were not particularised. In essence, it appears that the Complainant was not told what she was doing wrong, not given time to improve and her explanation as to why the work was not being completed was ignored.

In the circumstances I find the that dismissal of the Worker was both substantively and procedurally unfair.  While it is important to that new employees are monitored as to the performance of their duties, they should also be permitted time to improve and given the necessary information and assistance to facilitate such a improvement. In light of the foregoing, I recommend in favour of the Worker.

I recommend in favour of the Worker and find that she was treated unfairly by the Employer. Having regard to the totality of the information presented, and given that the employment relationship has terminated, I recommend that compensation is the most appropriate form of remedy.

I recommend that the Employer pay the Worker the sum of €3,000 in compensation.

Short Service Dismissal, Performance