Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Financial Accountant

An Insurance Company

Representatives

  In person

Claire Bruton B.L. instructed by William Fry Solicitors

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00046184-001

13/09/2021

The employee was employed as a Senior Financial Accountant from 10th February 2021 until 16th April 2021. The employee was paid an annual salary of €80,000. The dispute referred to the Workplace Relations Commission on 13th September 2021 relates to an alleged unfair dismissal submitted in accordance with the Industrial Relations Acts, in circumstances where the employee did not have the requisite 12 months service to refer a complaint in accordance with the provisions of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977.

The employee stated that she applied for the position of Financial Accountant but was appointed to the position of Senior Financial Accountant due to her CV and relevant experience. The employee stated that while she had a job specification for the role of Financial Accountant, she did not receive one for the role of Senior Financial Accountant.

The employee further stated that when she joined the company, she sought a training plan and was informed that it was “primarily on the job training and that it would take a year to get up to speed with everything.” The complainant also outlined that when she joined the company in February 2021 it was a particularly busy period with no time given for training and yet it was expected that everything would be done in the required timeframe.

The complainant stated that she set up a meeting with her line manager on 10th March 2021 to give and receive feedback and to make sure expectations were aligned and while some resource issues were discussed, there was no performance issues raised at the meeting and other meetings that took place subsequently with others were positive and supportive.

The employee outlined that there was a lot of staff turnover within her team and that she herself had received a job offer for a position she previously applied for. The employee stated that she had clarified her loyalty to the company and noted that things were improving as a consultant had started working with the team. This had reduced the workload and resulted in opportunities for training and time to review process documents, and for the employee to seek ways by which she could add value to her role in the organisation.

The employee stated that in the absence of any performance issues being raised with her, she was very surprised that she was informed of her dismissal at a virtual meeting on 16th April 2021. The employee stated that she had not received any notification as to the purpose of the meeting and was unaware that she would be dismissed. The employee claims that her dismissal was unfair and is seeking compensation in relation to her complaint.

The employer contends that the complainant did not have the required skillset for the role of Senior Financial Accountant. The employer’s position was that the employee did not understand basic concepts in relation to carrying out the tasks for which she was employed and required significant additional support and assistance from other team members which was unsustainable. The employer stated that the employee was aware of the performance issues as these had been conveyed to her informally by her line manager since her employment commenced. The employer stated that it acted lawfully in terminating the employee’s employment in line with the provisions of the probationary clause included in the contract of employment.

The employee submitted a complaint of unfair dismissal in accordance with the Industrial Relations Acts. At the time of the complainant’s dismissal, she had completed a little over two months of a three-month probationary period. There had been no formal communications with the employee during this time that there were any issues with her performance or that she was at risk of losing her position as a Senior Financial Accountant.

The employee’s line manager does indicate a number of performance issues by email dated 29th March 2021 to other members of management, but these concerns are not conveyed to the employee at the time or at all and the employee’s position is that the first time that she becomes aware of these issues is at the meeting where her dismissal is communicated to her on 16th April 2021.

There was no opportunity for the employee to comment on or address these alleged performance issues prior to her dismissal or to offer any explanation as to what issues had arisen in the eight weeks since her appointment that may have led to the perceived performance issues. It also appears that there was no discussion in relation to having the probationary period extended in line with options outlined in the contract of employment. The employer contends that the dismissal was lawful, and that the employee was dismissed fairly in line with the terms of her contract of employment during the probationary period. However, in a complaint of unfair dismissal under the Industrial Relations Acts, in my view the employee should have been treated fairly, and the employer should act reasonably in the process leading to the dismissal of the employee.

Mitigation of Loss   

The employee outlined her efforts to mitigate her losses following her dismissal. She applied for 3 jobs in the year that followed her dismissal due to personal issues and caring responsibilities. The employer did not accept that the employee made sufficient efforts in seeking to mitigate her losses and submitted that the employee’s compensation, if her complaint succeeds, should be less than the maximum of four weeks’ pay that would apply in similar circumstances in complaints referred under the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977.

I have considered the verbal and written submissions of both parties to this dispute, and on the issue of mitigation, I accept the employer’s position that the complainant did not make sufficient efforts to mitigate her loss in the period following her dismissal.

Conclusions

In all of the circumstances of this dispute, I find that the employee was not treated fairly by the employer in circumstances where she was not formally notified of any performance issues prior to her dismissal, was not aware that her position in the company was at risk at  the time of the meeting of 16th April 2021, and was not given the opportunity to meet the required standard of her role by the provision of some training as had been requested and/or by an extension of the period of probation. For all of these reasons, I find that the employee was unfairly dismissed.

Having considered the submissions of both parties and for the reasons set out above I find in favour of the employee. I recommend that she be paid €3,000 in compensation.

Unfair dismissal, industrial relations act.

Cases cited by the respondent:

Janus Stadnik v Walton Logistics Limited: UD/484/2011

Catherine Murphy v Independent News and Media: UD/841/2013