ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: ADJ-00050895
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A Security Guard | A Security Services Company |
Representatives |
| Peter Dunlea Peninsula |
Dispute(s):
Act | Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Workplace Relations Commission under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act | CA-00062308-001 | 20th March 2024 |
Workplace Relations Commission under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act | CA-00062308-002 | 20th March 2024 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Roger McGrath
Date of Hearing: 20/08/2024
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended) following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any information relevant to the dispute.
The matter was heard by way of remote hearing on 2 July 2024 and 20 August 2024, pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. The first hearing held on 2 July 2024, was adjourned as the worker had technical issues which prevented a proper hearing of the case.
CA-00062308-002 was withdrawn by the worker at the outset of the hearing,
CA-00062308-001Complaint under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
Background:
The worker commenced employment with the employer on 18 December 2023. His employment ended on 24 January 2024. He worked a varied number of hours per week. |
Summary of Workers Case:
At the hearing the worker explained that having commenced employment with the employer he was not given any training nor was his performance evaluated in any way. He was paid in advance and was on a roster. He does not believe it was fair that he was dismissed as he believes he should have received training and an valuation of his performance before the decision was made to dismiss him. No one from the company spoke with him before he received a dismissal letter. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The employer stated that the worker was dismissed because there were issues with his performance while he was on probation. The employer provided a copy of the worker’s contract which covers probation and the employer’s right to terminate the worker’s employment with one week’s notice. The employer also supplied a copy of the letter of dismissal which clearly states that the worker’s dismissal was because his “performance has not met the standards expected of you.” The employer accepted that that no one from the company met with the worker to inform him of the decision to dismiss him. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.
I refer to the Court of Appeal decision in O’Donovan v Over-C in 2021 (Donal O’Donovan v Over-C Technology, [2021] IECA 37), where it was found that if dismissal during probation is for a reason such as poor performance, the employer does not have to afford the worker fair procedures.
Notwithstanding the above, I do find it difficult to understand why the employer did not have the courtesy to speak with the worker before dismissing him; he deserved that respect. Considering this failure by the employer I recommend a small ex gratia payment to the worker is appropriate.
|
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I recommend the employer pay the worker €250 because of its failure to show the minimum respect the worker was entitled to when being dismissed.
Dated: 16th of October 2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Roger McGrath
Key Words:
Probation, performance, respect. |