LCR23058

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

A Referral under Section 20(1) Industrial Relations Act 1969.

BACKGROUND:

The Worker referred this case to the Labour Court on 21 June 2024 in accordance with Section 20 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.

A Labour Court hearing took place on 25 October 2024.

RECOMMENDATION:

This matter comes before the Court as a referral by the Worker under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The referral was submitted on 21 June 2024. By letter of 10th September 2024 Peninsula on behalf of the Employer informed the Court that the Employer would not be attending.

The representative for the Worker submitted that he was employed as Chief Financial officer from 14th November 2023. The Worker is both a qualified Chartered and Certified Public Accountant and has held senior finance roles in both private and public sector organisations. He was coming to the end of a contract when a friend informed him about this job. He met with the owner and was offered the job.

The Company was a rapidly growing start up, operating as a distributor of solar energy products in Ireland and abroad. The Workers contract indicated that it was a hybrid role with a requirement to attend the Shannon HQ a minimum of two days a week. The Worker reported to the Chief Executive / owner of the business. The Worker understood his role was to ensure compliance with all statutory requirements and strict adherence to financial codes of practises. He had regular meetings with the Chief Executive and General Manager about the progress he was making. At no time was he informed that there were issues with his work.

The Worker was invited to a meeting in the Shannon office on 31st January 2024. He was not told the purpose of the meeting and just assumed it was a normal meeting. At the meeting the Chief Executive informed him that he did not see their relationship lasting 10 years, and that he would not need the Dublin based office going forward. He then informed the Worker that he was terminating his employment.

He received a letter terminating his services which stated “As a consequence, therefore, and taking into account your length of service, we have decided that your employment should be terminated on the basis that there was not a good suitability for the role within the probationary period to date. The probation period to date has highlighted several areas that deem the employment as not a good fit”.

The letter stated that the termination would be effective from when he had completed a handover and that he would be paid a months’ notice in lieu. It stated that the decision to dismiss could be appealed. The appeal was carried out by an external HR company Graphite HRM. The appeal was heard on the 27th February 2024. On the 8th March he was written to in respect of the Disciplinary Appeal Hearing outcome advising his appeal had not been upheld. This was the first time the Worker was informed that the process was a disciplinary process.

The Representative for the Worker submitted that the Worker had not been through a disciplinary process, so it was bizarre that the appeal was classified by the Employer’s representative as a disciplinary appeal.   It was a further demonstration that this was not an independent appeal process, and that the outcome was a foregone conclusion. The Representative also noted that the Worker’s contract did not actually contain a provision that provided for dismissal either during probation or at all. The only provision for dismissal was for gross misconduct and no such allegation was made against the Worker.

In terminating the Workers probation as a disciplinary sanction, the Worker was entitled to fair procedure which did not happen in this case. He was brought to a meeting given, no advance notice of same and informed he was being dismissed as the Chief executive did not see a future for them. He was then informed in his dismissal letter that there were issues with his work which were never set out, and finally when he exercised his right of appeal, he discovered that his dismissal was being treated as a disciplinary issue.  This was a fact that was never brought to his attention until the outcome of the appeal issued.

The Court, taking into account the submissions made to it, recommends that the Employer pay compensation to the Worker of €35,000 in respect of the unprofessional and inappropriate manner in which they terminated his employment, and the failure to advise him in advance of any issues that they had with his performance.

The Court so Recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Louise O'Donnell
TH	______________________
18th November 2024	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Therese Hickey, Court Secretary.