ADJ-00037221

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

A Sales Company

Representatives

  Self-represented

Lisa Conroy Peninsula Group

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00040397-001

14/10/2020

The Complainant contends that he was unfairly dismissed having been accused of aggressive and disruptive behaviour.  He was employed by the Respondent Company for four days and was dismissed following attendance at a training course.

The Claimant was employed as a Residential Field Sales Executive on the 28th of September 2020.  He was in the employment for four days. The Claimant as part of this role was required to undertake a training course in order to become proficient in the product he was selling and general compliance and sales principals. The Respondent submits that throughout this training the Claimant was disruptive and argumentative. The Respondent submits that the Trainer approached the Claimants direct line manager in relation to this. The Respondent took into account the Claimants length of service of four days and dismissed him on the 1st of October 2020 over the phone.

The Claimant did not formally raise any issues prior to his termination on the 1st of October 2020.

The Claimant emailed the Respondents press office following the call which terminated his employment. The Claimant threatened the recipients of the Respondents generic press office email that he intended to take legal action would be seeking to make this a topic of conversation in the Irish Media.

HR made contact with the Claimant and noted that the Claimant was aggrieved he was let go during the training period as he had purchased a laptop and stayed in a B&B in order to attend the online classes. HR asked the Claimant could they come to an agreement and assist with these expenses and requested the Claimant to follow the formal procedures to allow them to investigate any issues he had. On the 6th of October the Respondent wrote to the Claimant and confirmed his dismissal

in writing. The Respondent again asked the Claimant if he would like to raise a grievance to allow

the Respondent to investigate his issues. The Respondent attached the grievance procedure to this letter. The Respondent had not received any particulars regarding his complaints such as dates or comments to be able to investigate. The Claimant did not furnish the Respondent with any detail into his allegations.  It is submitted that in circumstances where the Claimant was in the employment for just four days, had been disruptive in the training course, and had not followed up with any grievance, the Respondent acted fairly in dismissing him     

Although there were lengthy submissions made, especially by the Complainant regarding this dispute, the circumstances outlined in the detailed and lengthy hearing into this case were fairly straightforward.  The Complainant was happy to be employed by the Respondent in the first instance, and incurred some expense as outlined in order to successfully complete his training.  Where the situation deteriorated it appears was in certain conflicts with the Trainer.  I note the lack initially of any formal complaint against her, and the Complainant’s obvious fractious phone call with his Line Manager during which she terminated his employment.  I note the Respondent’s HR Manager’s attempts to have the Complainant submit his grievances in writing and I note the Complainant’s failure to do so.  However, even in a situation where an employee has such short service as the Complainant as in this case, and in a situation where the Respondent experienced the Complainant to have been very belligerent and seemingly aggressive, and some evidence was clearly outlined about that in the hearing, it is nevertheless incumbent upon the Employer to adhere to fair procedures.  The Labour Court in LCR 21798 Beechside Co. Ltd -and- a Worker found:

“The Court accepts that an employer has the right, during a probationary period, to decide not to retain that employee in employment.  However, the Court takes the view that this can only be carried out where the employer adheres strictly to fair procedures.”   

The correct course of action would have been for the employer to have written to the Complainant to call him to an investigation and disciplinary hearing.  As the Respondent failed to so do, and as a gesture towards the expenses incurred by the Complainant in trying to ensure good attendance at the training, I recommend the Respondent offer the Complainant the sum of €770 compensation equivalent to two weeks pay, in settlement of this dispute.

Dismissal for disruptive behaviour.  No procedures invoked.