Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

An Employee

An Employer

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 - 00004031

28/03/2025

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

The worker submitted that she was dismissed because of the behaviour of one of her staff.  That staff member was with the company for 7 years. In her interview process she was told about her bad behaviour but thought that she would be able to overcome this.

The worker submitted that she believes that she was wrongfully dismissed because the employer has not been able to deal with that staff member in the past even though she was with HR on a number of occasions and because she was there more than 12 months.

The worker submitted that the dismissal was not performance based, she was not given due process and there was not investigation or disciplinary issue raised with her.  She stated that her probation management documentation was late and unsigned.  Her employment was terminated, and she was not given any notice.  She stated that she did not receive support in dealing with a difficult individual and was provided with no reasons in writing for her dismissal.

The worker is seeking €20,000 in compensation for the way she was treated.  She outlined seeking employment every day for 2 to 3 hours daily. 

The employer submitted that the worker was given repeated feedback across multiple formats: probation reviews, quarterly reviews, e-mail interventions, and a formal exit meeting. Despite this support, she failed to demonstrate leadership, decision making, and proactive management. The probation extension forwarded to her was in her own interest and was consistent with the requirements of the statutory instrument.

The employer submitted that the dismissal was performance based, not misconduct related. The measures provided to the worker go beyond what is legally required demonstrating good faith, proportionality, and compliance with both contract and recent law.

The employer rejected any suggestion of bias, it actions were reasonable and proportionate and were procedurally fair.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

The worker and the employer provided different versions of the events that led up to her dismissal. The worker indicated that she was never provided with reasons in writing for her dismissal and while conceding this the employer indicated that no one document was compiled to indicate the workers shortcomings. However, it was submitted that those shortcomings were outlined to her during the currency of her employment.

The worker’s probation was extended and according to the employer it was in the interests of the employee. I am not certain that that is the case, and it does not appear that this case was outlined to the complainant in writing. On balance it seems unfair to any worker to extend their probation without giving them reasons in writing.

The employee was dismissed with immediate effect and was not provided with written reasons as to why they were dismissed. The employer suggested that it was performance related but this was not provided to the worker in writing.

The employee was in receipt of a monthly salary of €5200, amount to a weekly salary of €1300.