Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A HR Manager

A Cleaning Company

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-53380

24/01/2022

The complainant commenced employment on October 10th, 2021, and her employment terminated on the January 20th 2022.

She had made a complaint to her employer about receiving a number of disrespectful emails from a colleague which for which the managing director apologised and suggested mediation.

The person who had sent these emails had repeatedly tried to undermine her in front of colleagues and in addition to the disrespectful emails he copied other colleagues who did not need to be involved.

She complained to the Managing Director who acknowledged in writing that she was sorry that the complainant had been treated in this way. She proposed mediation with the parties to which the complainant agreed as she wished to resolve the situation informally.

This mediation took place on January 6th, 2022.

The complainant had sought a public apology by which she meant that it should be made in the presence of those people who had were aware of the original emails.

She was told that the other party had agreed to this and therefore she accepted it on the understanding that there would be a further review of behaviour and attitudes from this manager two weeks later.

However, on January 20th two weeks after the mediation she was called into the Managing Director’s office and told her employment was being terminated with immediate effect.

When she asked why she was told that it was because she was not ‘’a good fit’ for the company.

She was told that she had done nothing wrong and had done everything that was asked of her.

However, she particularly objected to the manner in which the termination was implemented. She was advised to clear her desk and escorted by the MD out of the office who remained with her until her partner came to collect her.

This was an embarrassing and humiliating experience. She was essentially marched out of the office as if she had engaged in wrongdoing and the conversation terminating her employment was carried on with an earshot of other employees of the company.

She was able to hear them laughing at her discomfort.

She feels that the dismissal was a response to her earlier complaint against the party referred to above. In respect of her other claims, she says that she did not receive either a statement of our terms and conditions of employment for the course statement as required by legislation.

The complainant had made a complaint against a co-worker that he had become aggressive, intimidating and undermining’.

The company MD undertook to address the matter immediately and did so. The outcome was an apology to the complainant.

The respondent managing director give evidence.

She confirmed the facts surrounding the emails to which the complainant objected and that she conducted a mediation on January 6th following which the apology issued to the complainant on the same day.

However, she says that the reason for the dismissal had nothing to do with the complainant’s dispute with her colleague but with her general fit as she had been told.

In conclusion the respondent says that it terminated the complainant’s employment within the probation period and was entitled to do so. The termination was not related to the earlier incident with her co-worker.

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

The net issues in the case under the Industrial Relations Act are relatively clear.

In the first instance there was conflict between the complainant and a co-worker which appears to have been resolved on foot of the mediation carried out by the MD on January 6th and the resulting apology.

Then a mere two weeks later the complainant finds herself in the position of having her job peremptorily terminated.

This gives rise to two issues. The first is the grounds on which the termination took place. The second relates to the manner in which it was executed.

In relation to the first of these, the grounds, the complainant was told at the time, but she was not ‘a good fit’ and this position was re-stated in evidence at the hearing. To this was added the fact that as a worker on probation she was liable to have her employment terminated if it was not satisfactory.

At the very least it is hard not to be suspicious of this explanation given the proximity of the termination to the earlier event and the lack of any other warning or prior indication to the complainant regarding her conduct or performance.

Even when a person is on probation there is an obligation to advise them as to their progress and especially if their continued employment may be at risk due to inadequate performance. This is the one of the purposes of probation.

It is hard to believe that it was not related to her interpersonal difficulties with her co-worker earlier in the month as there was no other obvious proximate cause.

Whatever room for doubt up there may be about the reason for her termination the manner in which it was carried out was inexcusable.

No explanation was offered for why it became quite so imperative to get rid of the complainant in the manner it was done.

 There was no reason why she could not have been taken to a quiet place part of the office, out of earshot of her colleagues and given such explanation as the company wished to give for its decision to terminate her employment, however difficult it may have been for the complainant to accept it.

The feelings of humiliation described by the complainant are hardly surprising given her description of the manner in which was carried out (which was not contested).

While termination may be effected in the early stages of employment with less formality than is generally required under the writ of the Unfair Dismissals Act there remains an obligation on an employer to observe some vestiges of civility and fairness in bringing an employment relationship to an end, whatever the circumstances.

The respondent in this case failed to do so by quite some distance and the complainant is entitled, in equity, to a remedy.

I award the complainant €7,500 for the breach of her rights.

Termination during probation