ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: Adj-00047219
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | worker | Customer Service Call Centre |
Representatives | self |
|
Dispute(s):
Act | Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 | CA-00058053 | 2/08/2023 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dalton
Date of Hearing: 22/01/2024
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended)following the referral of the dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any information relevant to the dispute(s).
Background:
The worker commenced employment on or about the 7th of February 2023 and his employment was terminated on the 1st of August 2023. The worker’s salary was €1975 gross per month. |
Summary of Workers Case:
The worker stated that he was performing well in his role until he made a complaint about his Team Leader’s behaviour. Arising from this complaint the worker alleged that he was victimised, and his performance went from being good to being assessed as poor. The worker alleges that he was being bullied. He states that his performance was as good as others and in some cases better. These colleagues were not let go and did not fail their probation review. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The Operations Manager gave evidence and stated that at no time was he aware of any complaint made by the worker. He was the decision maker and solely based on key metrics that are agreed with their main client was the employee’s probation period deemed to be unsatisfactory and his emp |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have considered all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.
On the evidence of the Operations Manager, the worker appeared not to meet a key metric and was below the minimum standard for this metric. This key metric was an external requirement of a key client of the business. The decision was totally made on the metric and how the worker interacted with customers. The Operations Manager was not aware of the separate grievance initiated by the worker concerning his direct supervisor. The Company has provided a very detailed diary of coaching sessions and reviews with the worker relating to a period dated the 9th of March 2023 to the 19th of July 2023. The Company also provided detailed metric scores from March to July that show the worker failed to reached target on two key metrics. It is probable the worker was exceeding technical targets; however, 2 key customer service measures were not achieved during the probation period. It is for this reason that the worker was not affirmed in his position during the probationary period. It is also the case that during the period of probation an employer has significant latitude when determining if an employee should pass or not pass the probation review. It is also the case, based on the oral evidence during the hearing; that the grievance made by the worker against his supervisor was not a factor in the probationary assessment. The decision not to affirm the probation was made by a line manager not involved in the grievance or aware of the grievance. He made the decision mainly on the key performance metrics. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I do not find in favour of the worker and recommend that the worker accepts that his employment was terminated arising from a probationary review that held he did not meet certain key customer metrics for the Company. It is also the case that during the period of probation an employer has significant latitude when determining if an employee should pass or not pass the probation review. It is also the case, based on the oral evidence during the hearing; that the grievance made by the worker against his supervisor was not a factor in the probationary assessment. The decision not to affirm the probation was made by a line manager not involved in the grievance or aware of the grievance. He made the decision mainly on the key performance metrics.
Dated: 7th February 2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dalton
Key Words:
Unfair dismissal |