Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Customer Service Administrator

A Training Company

Representatives

  Self-represented

 Internal/Self-represented

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

s. 13 Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended)

CA-00057932

08/07/2022

The Worker worked for the Employer for just over four months, from March 2022 until July 2022, when she was dismissed while on probation.

The Worker submits that her dismissal was unfair, and that she repeatedly requested training which was not provided.

The Employer submits that the Worker was not a good fit for the Employer company culturally, that there was a degree of inflexibility in the Worker’s approach to her work, and that there was a culminating incident – an outburst by the Worker on the day the Employer informed her that she was going to be let go.

The Worker submits that she started work for the Employer on March 8th, 2022.

She submits that her Letter of Offer confirmed she was hired on a permanent basis with no mention in this letter that she was subject to a six (6) month probationary period. (Copy of document submitted). The Worker submits that her Letter of Offer also stated a copy of her contract along with an outline of the terms and conditions would be sent to her.

The Worker submits that she did not receive these until the April 27th, 2022, which she submits is 50 days after her start date – she submits that she had been working until then with no visibility of her contract or terms of employment. She submits that on April 27th, 2022, she received her contract along with her terms of employment as well as an apology from HR confirming that there had been an oversight in failing to previously provide them.

The Worker submits that no concerns were ever brought to her attention during her employment by management at any point from her start date of March 8th, 2022, until the termination of her employment on July 4th, 2022.

The Worker submits that she was stressed, untrained and unsupported in her role, and that she drew this to the attention of the Employer and that she discussed this with the Group Training Manager.The Worker submits that she was advised, at that point, that everyone was very happy with her and that she was doing great, and had nothing but good feedback from other members of staff. She further submits that the Group Training Manager said she would link in with the Training Manager and that she was promised further training. The Worker submits that she later learned that this meeting was brought to the attention of the HR Manager, which she was unaware of, at the time, and unclear as to why.

The Worker submits that she emailed the Training Managerwithin the month of April to advise that she was feeling anxious regarding her job role and her training and to ask for her training to continue. She submits that between April and May, she again emailed the Training Manager numerous times to follow up on her first email as she was getting no response. She submits that she stressed again how she was feeling anxious regarding the lack of training she received and her job role – the Worker received an email back confirming she would look into this. The Worker submits that no training was provided to her.

The Worker submits that she approached the Group Training Manager in April. She submits that a verbal conversation took place in the finance room and that she expressed again her concerns regarding lack of training and support. The Worker submits that the Group Training Manageradvised her that she would speak with the Training Manager regarding training and assigning her a training buddy. The Worker submits that she received no update and no training.

The Worker submits that (in approximately May) a new Line Manager started in the role. She submits that at her first meeting with her new Line Manager, she expressed again how low she was feeling regarding the job role and her lack of training despite seeking support. She submits that she was advised by her new Line Manager this would be looked into. The Worker submits that she received no further update or training.

The Worker submits that on June 28th, 2022, she received the only one-to-one from her new Line Manager. The Worker submits that from the notes of the meeting, that it is evident that she stressed her concerns regarding her lack of training. The Worker submits that she stressed she had no knowledge of what was expected of her, and no objectives or goals outlined to her at any point during her employment.

The Worker submits that it was suggested that for a two-week trial basis, staff were to be allocated a schedule to use the printer or to leave their desk, due to calls from clients being missed and consequent lost revenue for the company. The Worker submits that she stressed that she felt uncomfortable taking calls when she had no knowledge or training on any of the courses the company offered and was waiting on numerous replies to her requests for training and support; and once this was received, she would certainly take calls for the trial period. The Worker submits that around this time, she reached out to HR and advised them of same – she submits that she outlined all her concerns regarding her lack of training for the job role and how she felt let down. HR advised the Worker that they would speak with her Team Leader (new Line Manager) again.

The Worker submits that in the days leading up to her termination, she had reached out again to the Group Training Manager, seeking a meeting to no avail.

The Worker reached out to the HR Administrator on June 28th, 2022, and raised a grievance.

July 4th, 2022: Termination of Employment

There was an incident on July 4th, 2022. The Worker submits that her Line Manager approached her in the stationery room and requested that she return to the office, as it was not her allotted printing time and that she was not supposed to be down there. The Worker submits that she broke down and said that she felt like she was back at school. The Worker submits that she was under huge strain and mental anguish and that she felt at breaking point. She submits that she was in the middle of a panic attack and could not breathe and that she told her Line Manager that she needed to get out of there. She submits that she went upstairs to retrieve her bag and was escorted to the bathroom by two colleagues who saw how distraught she was.

The Worker submits that the Line Manager approached the Worker and asked her to take an extended lunch and they would regroup after that. The Worker returned to the office and met with her Line Manager – she explained that she was in such a distressed state due to the fact that she had been asking for help and support for months and it had gone unheard; the Worker submits that her Line Manager promised to help her and make changes.

The Worker submits that she approached the Group Training Manager and explained what had happened. She submits that it was during this meeting her attitude towards the Worker changed and she suggested that the Worker was being troublesome and causing issues and suggested she get on with things as this job was learn as you go and not like her previous other jobs – that there is no being seated in a classroom for weeks. It was during this discussion it was suggested to the Worker that she speak with the HR Manager regarding her concerns.

The Worker submits that she approached the HR Manager at approximately 2 pm in his office and explained and outlined everything that had occurred. He apologised and assured her he had no knowledge prior to their conversation that anything was wrong and he assumed that she was getting on fine. The Worker submits that he said to her: “I am sorry you fell through the net”, and that he alluded to the fact that she had started at a bad time due to staff turnover. He assured her he would liaise with the Group Training Manager, the Training Manager, and the Worker’s Line Manager and put a two-week plan in place to help and support the Worker and assured her he would check in after this time had elapsed. The HR Manager asked the Worker to email him a list of the Worker’s current job lists which she had completed. She agreed and thanked him for his time. The Worker submits that she told the HR Manager how she found the Group Training Manager’s attitude and comments towards her unacceptable and that that meeting had deeply upset her.

The Worker submits that she returned to the office and the Group Training Manager called her at approximately 4.45 pm. The Group Training Manager advised her that on consideration of today’s events that they had decided to accept her notice and pay her in lieu, until the 15th of the month; and if the Worker refused that offer, she would be letting the Worker go.

The Worker submits that she was in such a state from all the events that day that she broke down again and went to get her things.She submits that she got down to the HR Manager’s office clearly distressed and told him that she had been let go. He replied that he was aware. The Worker submits that she asked him to clarify that, because she had come to him and reported management and asked for help, and that after assuring her he would help that within an hour she was being let go. He stated it was down to today amongst other things. The Worker submits that she replied that she was not aware of other things as nothing had ever been brought to her attention. The Worker submits that she left the office in an emotionally distressed state.

The Worker submits that her employer had a duty of care to her and did not follow her to see if she was okay and did not phone her to see if she got home safely.

In response to a query from the Adjudication Officer, at the hearing, the Worker outlined the impact on her, as follows: She said that the events had impacted her confidence, that she came from a customer service background and had thirteen (13) years’ experience, that she had no job from July to November, that she struggled in interviews – that she was not strong enough at the time. She said that it took its toll financially, that she got into debt and took loans from family members. She said that she received a diagnosis for depression and was on medication for that. She said that the events took a toll on her home life and her family life. She said that she did not feel confident to go into another office role.

The Employer submits that the Worker worked in a shared work environment (8 people), that there was no gap in team lead, and that the training was the team leader’s responsibility, and the Worker received the same training as everyone else and should have been able to complete her role to a satisfactory level. The Employer submits that there was a probationary meeting on 19/05/2022, that the team leader found the Worker’s work to be at a satisfactory standard. The Worker’s last day was July 4th, 2022.

The Employer submits that the business was missing a huge amount of phone calls and a plan was put in place to address that. As part of the plan, in the group scheduled to take these phone calls – each person was given a time slot to answer phones. The Worker was given a time slot but she did not do it.

The Employer submits that there were cultural issues with the Worker, i.e. that she was not a good fit for the culture of the Employer company. The Employer submits that any time there was a task that needed to be done, some issue was raised in respect of it, and it was the Employer’s perspective that the Worker had an inability to be flexible in the workplace.

The Adjudication Officer enquired at the hearing as to whether that was drawn to the Worker’s attention? The Employer confirmed that it was. The Employer submitted that the Worker had difficulty working within a team, and had difficulty working with managers; and that difficult conversations were had consistently with the Worker and that ultimately it was decided that she did not fit into the culture of the company.

The Employer submitted that consistent informal meetings were had with the Worker, but there were no minutes of these. It further submitted that there were internal communications in respect of the Worker (but she had no sight of these emails).

The Adjudication Officer at the hearing enquired as to whether the steps of the Employer’s internal probationary procedure, as set out, had been followed in respect of the Worker. Parts of it had not been followed – there had been a delay in relation to parts of the required induction, the probationary meeting with the Worker which should have taken place one month in, was missed completely, the meeting at three months was done “under paperwork” and the Worker’s employment had been terminated prior to the six month mark.

The Employer submitted that the priority was outlining a plan in terms of shadowing/training for the Worker and that it was “down to her Team Leads to manage her.” The Worker was on two weeks’ annual leave, and when she came back from holidays at the start of June, she was to be provided with extra on the job training – that she was to shadow or be shadowed, to ask management or a tenured member of staff.

The Worker’s new Line Manager (Team Lead) started her role on May 4th, 2022, approximately six (6) weeks after the Worker started with the Employer.

The Line Manager attended at the hearing and assisted in the investigation. She said that she was a new employee, and that once she started, she had to catch up on the background. She said that the Worker was on the phones, temporarily, as the Employer was understaffed at the time. She said it was under control until staff were hired as a replacement. She said that the Worker had expressed to her that it was not something she wanted to do on an long-term basis, and that it would cause the Worker to not be in the role. The Line Manager expressed concern that the Worker did not want to be there. She explained that there was a degree of flexibility required in the job, that the employees were required to help out departments that were under pressure. She said that it formed part of the Worker’s job, under customer service. She said that no grievance procedure had been utilised in relation to it, by the Worker, but that she (the Line Manager) did take it into account, in terms of what she assigned to the Worker (hunt-lines which would not have had as high a volume of calls – the Worker could take a message and come back later on). The Line Manager expressed the view that she felt the Worker “would come in and do what was in front of her, but in relation to additional duties, there was a degree of inflexibility.”

The Line Manager concurred with the Worker’s account of the incident on July 4th, 2022, where the Worker shouted at her, and then later that day apologised for her outburst. The Line Manager said that when she spoke with the Worker, the Worker raised the issue of training again and the Line Manager tried to get it across to the Worker that the training provided in the company was side-by-side training, not formal classroom training, that it was quite a casual work environment; that a plan would be put in place. She expressed empathy to the Worker. The Line Manager explained that she notified the Group Training Manager that there had been an incident involving the Worker.

The Employer submitted that there is a grievance policy and procedure set out in the contract and  employee handbook but did not dispute that the contract was sent later than it would usually send it, and acknowledged that it had not followed its own process in that regard, explaining that there had been a change of HR administrator, at the time. The Employer submitted that there was a grievance initiated by the Worker on approximately June 28th, 2022, – the Worker met with a HR Administrator on the Thursday, and the Worker’s final day was the following Monday or Tuesday. At that meeting, the Worker raised the issue of the phones, the previous meeting she had had with management, and expressed that her main concern was that she did not have the knowledge to do this (answer those phone calls).

The Employer submits that everyone worked in the one room, that people are instructed on the job by sitting next to someone, showing new employees different tasks when they come up, as companies (clients) make inquiries to the Employer. It submits that it has trained eight new employees since successfully, using the same approach provided to the Worker.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

I find for the Worker.

It seems likely that the Worker’s approach and the Employer’s work environment may not have been a good fit, in any case. In particular, the Employer seems to have a fast-paced, agile work environment, and the Worker expressed concerns and refusals around the Employer’s requirements for flexibility. The Worker seems to have experienced genuine anxiety when faced with new situations for which she had not been specifically trained.

Having said that, the Employer did not set the Worker up for success. It appears that there were some changeovers of staff and management, and some gaps occurred in its onboarding processes. The Worker did not receive her contract on time. Parts of her induction into the company were delayed or not fulfilled. Of particular note, is that the company did not follow its own processes - the probationary meeting that was due to take place one month in, in line with the Employer’s own procedures, did not occur at all, and some of the later communications were by email only. It is of note that there are no records or minutes of the “informal conversations” the Employer says it had with the Worker. It is also noteworthy that there were communications between management in relation to concerns about the Worker’s work, behaviours and attitude to which the Worker was a stranger – and therefore not on notice of same, and not in a position to take steps to remedy the situation.

The Worker’s new Line Manager treated her very decently and was very supportive of her and kind to her. She provided straight-forward, cogent and clear responses to my enquiries, at the hearing.

The Worker, for her part, seemed to have quite fixed ideas as to how things “should” be done but different companies have different approaches, and are entitled to have different approaches. The Employer is entitled to issue reasonable management instructions and to have the Worker follow them. The Worker seems to have been quite resistant to instructions with which she did not agree, or in relation to things for which she had not received specific training, or where she held a view that things ought to be done differently.

The Worker’s outburst was unreasonable, which she acknowledges. She apologised for it on the day it occurred – and outlined the context in which it occurred, from her perspective. Her Line Manager’s response was very decent and reasonable.

I am guided by the contents of S.I. 146/2000 and I conclude that the Employer fell short of an approach which can be reasonably adopted, in the management of the Worker’s probation or grievance, in line with the right to fair procedures and due process.

CA-00057932 - I recommend that the Employer pay the Worker €5,000 in full and final settlement of this complaint.

Industrial Relations; Dismissal; Probation;