Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Customer Success Manager

An eCommerce customer support service.

Representatives

Rachel McGovern B.L. instructed by  Crushell & Co Solicitors

 Ledwith Solicitors

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act

CA-00063633-001

22/05/2024

The employee was employed from 9th October 2023 until 5th April 2024. The employee was employed as a Customer Success Manager and was subject to a probationary period of 6 months which was due to end on 8th April 2024. The employee was dismissed on 5th April 2024 because of alleged performance issues. As the complainant had less than one years’ service, the unfair dismissal was referred to the WRC under the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 where both parties attended the hearing seeking a recommendation on the dispute.

Named Respondent.

The complainant did not correctly state the respondent’s title on his complaint form. However, all parties were in attendance at the adjudication hearing and the correct respondent’s name was agreed and is cited in this recommendation which will issue to both parties.

The employee’s representative contends that the employee was unfairly dismissed. While the majority of the written submissions furnished to the WRC relate to the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977, the within dispute concerns and alleged unfair dismissal under the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 as the employee had less than one years’ service with the employer.

The employees’ position is that as far as he was concerned there was no issue with his performance throughout his probation and there were no probationary meetings held to inform him of any perceived issues. The employee further contends that he was unaware that his continued employment was in doubt when he attended a meeting which resulted in his dismissal. The employee stated that the reason given to him for his dismissal was that he did not perform at the level expected given the salary he was being paid.

The Employer contended that the employee was dismissed in line with the provision of his contract during the probationary period. The employer stated that the employee was highly recommended and was employed on the basis of the recommendation and his previous experience. The employer stated that during the probationary period, the employee’s performance was not at the required level, and a decision was made to dismiss him with effect from 5th April 2024 on the basis that he was not performing at the expected level given his experience and level of earnings he received.

I have considered the submissions of the parties to this dispute. The employer acknowledged that approximately four days before completing his six months probationary period, the employee was dismissed from his employment. It was also accepted that the employee was not afforded an appeal of the dismissal.

It was also accepted that the employee was not provided with any probationary meetings during the period of probation or previously informed of any perceived performance issues. The employee was also unaware that his continued employment was in question when he attended the meeting on 5th April 2024 which led to his summary dismissal.

At the adjudication hearing, the parties were facilitated with a brief recess to explore the possibility of a resolution to the matter which ultimately proved unsuccessful requiring a recommendation on the dispute.

In arriving at my Recommendation in this case, I am mindful of the Labour Court’s approach in the LCR22710 which awarded €10,000.00 to a worker who was dismissed in very similar circumstances during the probationary period. The parties were afforded the opportunity to comment on the Court’s recommendation and the WRC Adjudication Decision under appeal. There was no comment from the employer and the employee representative confirmed the similarity between both cases and the dispute under consideration.

I also note that the employee commenced employment three months following his dismissal and is in receipt of an increased annual salary.

Having considered the matter, I find that the employee was unfairly dismissed during the probationary period, and I find that the employee should receive compensation as a result.

In all the circumstances of the dispute, and for the reasons stated above, I recommend that the employer pay the employee compensation in the amount of €10,000.00 for the lack of fair procedures in relation to the probationary period and the employees’ unfair dismissal by the employer.

Probationary period, unfair dismissal,