Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Employee

Employer

Representatives

  n/a

 n/a

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act

CA-00054049-001

07/12/2022

The Complainant is seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Acts and has submitted that he was unfairly dismissed (CA-00054049-001).

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on the 1st July 2022. The Complainant was employed as a field service engineer and his gross pay was €4,100.00 gross per week (€3,782.00 net) for 40 hours per week.

The Complainant submitted that he was involved in an altercation with another employee on the 14th November 2022 wherein other colleagues had to intervene. The Complainant provided a written account of the incident to his line manager on the 16th November 2022. The Complainant indicated he would find it difficult to continue to work with the other employee who was involved in the altercation.

The Complainant submitted that he met with the Managing Director on the 21st November 2022 wherein it was suggested to him that he should be the one to leave the company. In the circumstances of this incident the Complainant found this suggestion to be grossly unfair and refused to leave the company by mutual agreement.

The Complainant met with the Managing Director on the following day and was informed that his contract would not be renewed following his probation period of six months and he was released from all work related obligations from the 22nd November 2022. The Complainant was very disappointed by the Respondents decision and in particular believed he had been the victim in the aforesaid workplace incident.

The Complainant was paid his salary until the 28th February 2023 and commenced further employment as a service engineer in March 2023.

This Complaint was received by the Workplace Relations Commission on the 7th December 2022.

The Respondent accepts the background facts and the timeline in relation to the Complainants engagement with the Respondent Company.

The Respondent submitted that the Complainant was on a six month probation period from the 1st July 2022 and throughout this period his performance and behaviour were monitored.

The Respondent submitted that the workplace incident the Complainant referred to was not the only matter that was causing concern. There were separate incidents on the 31st August 2022 and the 12th September 2022 of aggressive and inappropriate behaviour.

The Respondent submitted that the Complainant was informed that his employment with the Respondent was subject to a successful completion of a six month probationary period and he would be notified in writing if he had successfully passed his probationary period.

The Respondent informed the Complainant by letter dated the 22nd November 2022 that his performance had been monitored since the 1st July 2022. The Complainant was informed that following written complaints and statements by team members and based on an email dated the 12th September 2022, his style of communication towards team members and/or management was unacceptable and based on this evidence the decision was made to terminate his contract.

The Respondent conceded in the course of the hearing of this matter that there was no independent investigation of the aforesaid matters and not all disciplinary procedures were followed.

It is the Respondents position that the Complainant was not unfairly dismissed.

I have carefully listened to the evidence tendered and submissions made in the course of this hearing by both parties.

The Complainant alleges that no procedures were following rendering his dismissal unfair. In the recent Court of Appeal decision in O’ Donovan v Over-C Technology the Court stated:

“…During a period of probation, both parties are – and must be – free to terminate the contract of employment for no reason, or simply because one party forms the view that the intended employment is, for whatever reason, not something with which they wish to continue”.

In relation to fair procedures, the Court stated that “…If an employer has a contractual right – in this case a clear express right – to dismiss an employee on notice without giving any reason, the court cannot imply a term that the dismissal may only take place if fair procedures have been afforded to the employee, save where the employee is dismissed for misconduct.” The Court explained that “…There is no suggestion that the principles of natural justice must be applied where an employer terminates the employment contract of an employee on the grounds of poor performance.”

I am satisfied that the Complainant’s employment was terminated due to the Respondent evaluation of his performance. I am further satisfied that as a result of that, the Respondent was under no obligation to follow the normal procedures. They were within their rights to simply terminate the agreement.

According, the complaint fails, and I am not making any recommendation in the circumstances noting the Complainant has not suffered any financial loss and immediately commenced employment following his garden leave.

I find that the Complaint (CA-00054049-001) made pursuant to the Industrial Relations Acts is not well founded.

Probation – Unfair Dismissal – Industrial Relations