Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

AN office administrator

An IT Company

Representatives

Self

Self

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00038735-001

14/07/2020

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

CA-00038735-002

14/07/2020

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 22nd March 2020 as an Administration Assistant, this employment ended on 2nd July 2020. The Complainant worked 20 hours per week for which she received a gross weekly payment of €230.77.

This complaint was received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 14th July 2020 and comes in two parts:

1.       Complaint submitted under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

2.       Complaint submitted under section 12 of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973,

The remote hearing of the complaint took place on Friday 12th March 2021.

The Complainant contends that she was employed by the Respondent and received no training for the tasks she was employed to do.

The Complainant also contends that she was informed that the current Covid pandemic was one of the reasons she given for letting her go.

The Complainant is challenging the process used by the Respondent to terminate her employment in as much as she was not informed that the outcome of the meeting she was invited to attend with the Operations Manager could result in her dismissal and that she was not afforded the opportunity to be accompanied at said meeting.

The Respondent stated that the Complainant was lacking in administration skills and only possessed a very limited knowledge of computer software packages. The Complainant had informed the Respondent at the recruitment stage that she was proficient in Microsoft, this was not the case and the Complainant was making many basic mistakes on a repetitive basis.

The Complainant was encouraged to commence training courses in computer applications and the Respondent organisation helped her to purchase a new laptop computer. The Respondent added that three weeks after taking delivery of the new laptop the Complainant had not used it.

On 9th June 2020 the Complainant was informed that she would have to improve. Throughout the following three weeks the Complainant repeatedly made basic mistakes. Finally, the Respondent felt that the only course of action open to them was to dismiss the Complainant from employment.

CA – 00038735 – 001. Complaint submitted under s.13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

An employee on probation is or should be undergoing training. A probationary employee should be treated fairly and although he/she is not entitled to know why they are being let go, good practice would suggest that where appropriate, the employer should so advise him / her and afford him / her an opportunity to put forward any evidence he / she can in his / her own defence.

In the instant case it would appear that very little has been documented by the employer and this in no short measure has led to the situation witnessed at the hearing of the complaint where almost everything said was disputed by either the former employee or the employer.

In Grant Thornton v A Worker (LCR 21543) the complainant asserted that she had been unfairly dismissed and referred the matter to the Labour Court, agreeing to be bound by its recommendation. The Respondent, her former employer, agreed that she had been dismissed but asserted that it was because she failed to satisfactorily complete her probationary period.

The Labour Court found that the Respondent failed to adhere to the requirements of the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures made under s.42 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. (Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures – S.I.142 of 2000), before the decision to dismiss the claimant was taken. In coming to that conclusion, the Court had regard to the following:

·       While the former employee was invited to attend a probation meeting the decision to dismiss had been taken prior to that meeting.

·       The former employee was not advised in advance that the purpose of the meeting was to effect her dismissal.

·       The former employee was not afforded an opportunity to be accompanied at the meeting.

·       No appeal procedure was available to the former employee in respect of the decision to dismiss her.

The same can be said of the instant case.

There is little doubt that the Complainant was not suitable for the job for which she was employed to do. However, the process of managing the employee to the point of dismissal was flawed.

The complainant mitigated her loss and secured other employment very quickly

I find the complaint as presented is well found and now recommend that the employer pays compensation to the former employee in the sum of €461.54.

CA – 00038735 – 002. Complaint submitted under s.12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973.

The Complainant was paid her minimum notice and outstanding holiday pay.

The complaint as presented is not well founded and therefore fails,

Compensation recommended should be paid to the former employee within 42 days from the date of this decision.

As outlined above.