Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A HR Manager

A Hotel

Representatives

  In person

 HR Hub

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-00002915

26/07/2024

The worker was employed by the employer from 3rd July 2023 until 2nd February 2024. The dispute relates to an alleged unfair dismissal after the worker had completed her six-month probationary period.

The worker confirmed that she was employed as a HR Manager from July 2023 until February 2024. The worker stated that she was an experienced HR professional but found the employment somewhat chaotic and reactive. The worker further stated that there was no performance issues raised to her prior to the completion of her probation and no process put in place prior to her dismissal which would allow her to address any concerns the employer may have had and to put forward her position in relation to same The worker claims that she was unfairly dismissed on 2nd February 2024 when she was informed that “things weren’t working out” and she was asked to leave immediately. The worker is seeking a recommendation in accordance with the provisions of Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

The employer contends that the worker was fairly dismissed in circumstances where the worker did not perform to the level expected. The employer stated that performance issues were noticed during the probationary period but not addressed formally as the worker was given time to meet the expectations of the role. The employer stated that there were several performance issues regarding the provision of training and the organisation of events within the hotel that the worker had not completed to the required standard. The employer contends that it formed the view that the workers employment would be terminated in circumstances where she was not performing as expected. The employer argued that to put the worker through a process prior to dismissal would have been disingenuous in circumstances where it would not have changed the decision to dismiss.

I have considered the written and oral submissions of the parties in relation to the dispute, At the time of the dismissal, the worker had completed a six-month probationary period. The employer stated that there were performance issues during the probationary period. I note there was no procedure put in place in relation to this or any extension of the worker’s probation.

The worker was unaware of any performance issues and stated in her submissions that she was an experienced HR professional with over 14 years’ experience and was shocked to be dismissed without any process whatsoever or to have any perceived performance issues raised to her either during the probationary period or at all. The worker’s position was that she was called to a meeting with two other members of management, with no advance notice, no knowledge of what the meeting was about or opportunity to be accompanied and summarily dismissed and asked to leave the premises immediately.

Having considered the matter, I find that the worker was unfairly dismissed as she was denied basic fair procedures in relation to her dismissal.

 The respondent representative, in supplemental submissions furnished to the WRC after the adjudication hearing had concluded, queried the necessity for following a process in relation to the worker’s dismissal in circumstances where it would not have affected the outcome.

The purpose of procedural fairness in relation to a permanent employee or any employee who is being dismissed, is that the worker is aware, in advance of being dismissed, that there are concerns in relation to that worker. It is also a basic tenet of fair procedures that the worker in question be given an opportunity to respond and address those issues of concern and be given an opportunity to rectify same. The Latin phrase “Audi alteram partem” means that the other side should be heard and in any employment relationship both sides should be given the opportunity to put forward their respective positions before any decision to dismiss is made as to do otherwise, will render the decision one sided and procedurally unfair.

If there were performance issues or concerns, the worker should have been made aware of these and been given the opportunity to respond and rectify the situation. I find that any worker, whether on probation or not, is entitled to address any issues that the employer may have and not simply be dismissed summarily on the basis that “things weren’t working out” as the worker was informed at the meeting on 2nd February 2024.

I also note the findings of the Labour Court in Labour Court Recommendation: LCR22710 where it awarded €10,000. 00 in compensation to a worker who was denied fair procedures when she was dismissed during the probationary period for performance issues that she was unaware of and not given the opportunity to address. While the worker in the within dispute was no longer on probation, I note the similarities of both cases where there were no process put in place by the employer which denied the worker the right to fair procedures.

In conclusion, I find that the worker was unfairly dismissed by the employer and should receive compensation as a result.

For the reasons stated above, I find that the worker was unfairly dismissed, and I recommend that she receive €10,000.00 in compensation.

Unfair Dismissal, Industrial Relations Act 1969.