Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Retail Sales Consultant

A Retailer

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

IR - SC - 00001440

08/06/2023

The dispute was referred by the Employee to the Workplace Relations Commission on 8 June 2023.

The Employee stated he commenced employment with the Employer as a Retail Sales Consultant on 20 March 2023. Following a conversation with the Area Manager on 05 April 2023 he was told that the Employer did not think the position was for him. He said he was asked to leave the premises as his employment had been terminated with the Area Manager giving him the HR Manager’s phone number when he sought a reason for his dismissal. The Employee submitted there was no paperwork or reason for his dismissal.

The Employee described the “utter humiliation” at his dismissal as he was well known in the community and had to go aboard to seek alternative employment.  

The Manager of the store explained she had difficulty with the Employee’s attitude and sought assistance from the HR Manager. In turn the Area Manager was sent from another county to the store and put up in a local hotel to help manage the Employee for a period of 12 days. After a number of conversations with the Employee about his performance, he felt there was no turn around in the Employee’s performance. On 05 April 2023, the Area Manager told the Employee that he was terminating his contract. He offered the Employee the HR Manager’s email address by way of an appeal.

The HR Manager stated he did not receive a call or email from the Employee following his dismissal. Upon inquiry the HR Manager identified the Probation Clause in the Employee Handbook.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties. In particular, I have carefully reviewed the Probation Clause of the Handbook which provides for a 6-month probationary period. There was no dispute that the Employee was within this 6-month period.

The policy continues, “During this period your work performance and general suitability will be assessed and, if it is satisfactory, your employment will continue. However, if your work performance is not up to the required standard or you are considered to be generally unsuitable, we may terminate your employment, without recourse to the disciplinary procedure.”

Based on the fact the Employer, to great expense, temporarily transferred the Area Manager to stay in a local hotel for a period of 12 days in order to assist the Employee in improving his performance, I find that this to be entirely reasonable. Despite this, the Employer found there to be no improvement in the attitude and performance of the Employee. While I do acknowledge the Employee’s point that it would have been preferable had the Employer reduced the warnings to writing and issued a formal letter of dismissal to ensure clarity for both parties.

Consequently, I do not find that the Employee was wrongfully dismissed.

IR – Wrongful Dismissal