Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Administrative worker

Car sales and service provider

Representatives

  Complainant self-represented

Colin Walsh The Society of the Irish Motor Industry

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Industrial Relations Act 1969 as amended

CA-00046182

13/09/2021

This dispute is concerned with the termination of employment of the former employee who had less than twelve weeks service at the time of the dismissal. The terms former employee and employer are used to describe the parties to the dispute.

The former employee submitted that she was unfairly dismissed. Her employment commenced on 8Febraury 202 and was terminated with one weeks pay in lieu of notice on 26 August 2021. She had received no terms of employment and no other documentation when appointed to an administrative role. On August 26th, 2021 she was called to an office by a manager-B. He spoke about her having worked with them for six months, that she had a fair wage and a bonus but that they were not happy with her attitude, detailing certain instances. She was being let her go with immediate effect and she would not be required to work her notice. The former employee said she was shocked-she had never been reprimanded for any issue, work quality or attitude during her time there. In fact, she had received a monthly bonus of €250 per month commencing in July. There was no witness present at the dismissal meeting and she had received no warnings of any kind.

The following day she went back to the employment and sought out the owner of the Company. He met with her and he spoke about her being let go at the end of a maternity cover-which she said was never said to her previously and that she had not applied for a maternity cover position. She was employed as a receptionist -the term used by the manager who hired her. When she received a reference from the owner he said the decision was entirely down to B. During the hearing when she heard of the discussions among managers about her work performance and attitude which led to their decision, she replied that none of those discussions were shared with her at any stage.

The former employee obtained work shortly after her dismissal initially on less pay. She said that what had happened to her was very damaging to her as a young person and at the time of her dismissal she had various outgoings to cover including her rent. She had learned a lot about her employment rights through this experience.

The former employee was employed as an administrator on €500 per week and not a receptionist. She was subject to the Company’s probationary period of twelve months which is outlined in the Company handbook and therefore it was denied she was not aware that she was on probation. The problem was, not that she was asked to take on tasks outside of her job description but that initially she proved incapable of taking them on and the office manager was forced to take them on. She was instructed repeatedly by the office manager to let him know when she ready to take on the rest of her duties, but she did not do so. A payment of €250 per month was introduced as a performance incentive. The Company owner described his own experience with work she was asked to do which she did not want to do-tell a colleague it was boring. He had never found himself in situation of appearing before a Body such as this (WRC) in forty years but when the managers dealing with her discussed her performance none were satisfied that the former employee was working out well. Normally all the necessary paperwork would be completed for someone starting in the employment, but this was overlooked in this case due to all that was going on with Covid.

At the hearing the representative of the employer conceded that it was obvious that there were difficulties with the paperwork. Something of an understatement in this case. There is not one record of any manager speaking to the former employee about her performance at any stage. There were no probationary reviews. The Employer provided a copy of the staff handbook which includes a twelve-month probationary period during which it says that the normal disciplinary procedures do not apply. This was not signed by the former employee and neither did she receive that document or any other terms in writing. The absence of any written terms is particularly important when the headline to the staff handbook is considered. The document opens: ‘please read..together with your statement of terms and conditions-they constitute yourconditions of employment with the Company.’ It follows therefore that the only terms applying in the case of the former employee were those provided verbally or enacted during the employment such as pay. And if she had no statement of terms or other document or agreement in place that she was both on probation and that the normal disciplinary procedures did not apply during a probationary period-then it follows she was never on probation as a term of employment and neither was she governed by that clause regarding termination during probation. Following on from this conclusion it is clear that this was an unfair dismissal where no fair procedures were followed, let alone those in the company policy for those not on probation. Accepting the owner was sincere and genuine when he spoke about work performance issues, his was a case based on managers speaking to each other about the former employee and nobody taking the time to speak to her or care to ensure that the paperwork was in order. This was a summary dismissal without any prior notification of the purpose of the meeting and the former employees is entitled to suggest that the impression was given, or it could be taken, that she had engaged in serious misconduct.

Given the absence of any terms and conditions in writing, the conclusion that there was in fact no probationary period in place and the general absence of any fairness, an amount of €2000 compensation is considered fair and to encourage the employer to ensure that there is no reoccurrence of the type of lapses present in this case.

Termination of employment-probation.