Employee

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Human Resources Generalist

A Cleaning Company

Representatives

Self-represented

Did not attend and was not represented

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969

CA-00055727-001

26/03/2023

The employer is an office and commercial cleaning company and the employee started working for them on January 16th 2023.  She worked as a HR generalist on a salary of €45,000.  She was dismissed seven weeks later, on March 3rd 2023.  She claims that her dismissal was unfair.

The employee said that she was interviewed for the job of HR generalist on Tuesday, January 10th 2023 and she was offered the job on the same day.  She agreed a start date of the following Monday, January 16th.  The employee said that she also agreed to attend at the company’s head office on Friday, January 13th, to meet the office manager who was due to go on holidays.  The employee said that she spent a half day with the office manager that Friday and that they were together in the office the following Monday.  The only other handover she got was an email from August 2022 from the person who was in her role previously. 

When she joined the company, the employee said that she asked for a contract of employment, and this was provided three weeks later, but it wasn’t signed on behalf of the employer.

The company employs around 250 staff and the employee said that she was the only HR person working there.  She said that the office manager was new and the other two people working in the head office were the managing director and the general manager.  Although she reported to the managing director, the employee said that she only met her on one or two days a week and her main point of contact was the general manager.  The industrial managers were in and out of the office frequently during the week.

The employee showed me a copy of the job description for her role which was posted with the job advertisement in January 2023.  Her responsibilities included being the “go to person” for HR issues, doing recruitment and working on staff retention, managing probation, keeping up to date with HR procedures and policies and delivering training.  The jobholder was also required to take responsibility for health and safety, the employee newsletter and to fill in for the office manager.  At the hearing, the employee said that she was also expected to manage the company’s social media communications.  She said that it wasn’t possible to do all this work.

On the form she submitted to the WRC, the employee said that, around 7.00am on the morning of March 3rd 2023, she received an email from the general manager asking her to attend a meeting at 4.00pm.  The subject header of the email was “review meeting.”  At the meeting, the general manager informed the employee that he had bad news and that she wasn’t a right fit for the company.  The general manager told the employee that she would receive a letter with the reason for her dismissal, but no letter was sent.

At the hearing, I asked the employee why she thought she was dismissed, and she said that she was trying to address a few issues and that she was working in the best interest of the company.  She said that she has experience of the cleaning industry, as she worked as a cleaner when she first came to Ireland from Lithuania, and she understands the business.  She said that a lot of her time was spent on recruitment, because people were leaving, and new people were starting every week.  She said that it was difficult to manage the recruitment processes because many of the new starters had no PPS numbers or bank accounts and didn’t speak English well.

As part of her job as a HR generalist, the employee said that she was required to deal with payroll issues and she also filled in for the office manager when that person was on holidays.  The employee said that she tried to resolve problems every day related to staff not being paid on time, not having contracts of employment and not doing mandatory training.  When she made suggestions or sent emails to the managing director or the general manager, she said that she was ignored.

During her short time in the job, the employee said that she updated all the employee files, separating starters and leavers and she got bank account details for everyone who was employed.  She said that she came up with solutions to problems and she made suggestions.  She said that she didn’t take holidays and she wasn’t out sick.  The employee said that this was only her third job in Ireland in 10 years.  She worked in a Michelin star restaurant for seven years and then in a hotel for three years.  She was made redundant from that job in December 2022.  She said that she has an excellent record in these two jobs.  Four weeks after she was dismissed, at the beginning of April 2023, she started in a new job and she was still working there on the date of this hearing.

I have considered the employee’s case that she was dismissed without notice and without following a procedure that could have been used to address any perceived shortcomings in her performance.  In the absence of a submission from the employer, I must rely on the employee’s version of what occurred.  It is apparent that, for the duration of her seven weeks of employment, she was not issued with a warning regarding her performance and she didn’t participate in a meeting to address any misconduct or concerns that could have led to her dismissal.

For the seven weeks that she was employed, the employee was on probation.  The purpose of probation is to give an employee an opportunity to learn the rudiments of a new job and for an employer to assess their suitability, from the perspectives of performance and “fit.”  Unfortunately, while the employee said that she was informed that she wasn’t “the right fit” for the company, she was given no information to indicate what aspect of her conduct or performance was causing this perception.  Understandably, this left her feeling confused and must have had an impact on her confidence when applying for another job.  The failure of the employer to provide the employee with a letter explaining the reason for her dismissal is unreasonable and unprofessional.

I accept that, in general, a complaint being considered under the Industrial Relations Act is a less formal matter than a hearing under the Unfair Dismissals Act; however, I am guided by the decision of the Labour Court in the case of Beechside Company Limited, trading as the Park Hotel Kenmare and A Worker[1].  It is clear from this decision that the requirement for fair procedures is not confined to employees who have adequate service to benefit from the protection of the Unfair Dismissals Act, and the Labour Court has consistently determined that employees with short service come within the protection of Statutory Instrument 146 of 2000, the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures.

Before she was dismissed, the employee should have been informed of any problem that was leading her managers to conclude that she was unsuitable for the job.  As she had very short service, it would not have been appropriate to go through each stage of a disciplinary process; however, she should have been given an opportunity to address the issues that were causing concern.  If someone had explained to her what was required to ensure that she remained in the job in the longer term, she may have adapted and reached the standard of performance that was required to make her a better fit for the job.  Because of the failure of the employer to engage in any procedures, I find that the dismissal of this employee was unfair.

I have concluded that the dismissal of the employee was unfair and not in accordance with any procedures.  I recommend that the employer drafts a procedure for managing the performance of employees on probation and that this procedure is issued to new employees as part of their induction.  I further recommend that the employer pays the employee compensation of €4,000, equivalent to approximately six weeks’ net pay.

Failure to use procedures in advance of dismissal