Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Mobile Patrol Officer

A Security Company

Representatives

  Appeared In Person

 Human Resource Manager

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Section 13, Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00062877-001

18 April 2024

On 18 April 2024, the Worker, a Mobile Patrol Officer submitted details of a dispute surrounding his dismissal on 27 November 2023. The details of the Dispute were shared with the Employer, a Security Company on 24 April 2024.

There was no objection to the proposed Adjudication hearing and both Parties were invited to hearing set for 21 October 2024.

On 26 September 2024, the Worker forward supporting documents in the case. This was followed by the Employers submission received on October 9, 2024.

The hearing progressed as planned on 21 October 2024. At the end of the hearing, I sought details of the Induction form applicable to this employment. The Employer sent me a signed copy of Induction Policies prior to the workers start date, but I did not receive a copy of the completed induction.

The Worker received this post hearing correspondence, but did not comment on it.

The Worker represented his own case. The Human Resource Manager represented the Employer.

The Worker commenced work as a full time Mobile Patrol Officer on 7 October 2023 in receipt of €720 gross per week.

The Worker outlined that he had attended a presentation by the Employer at a Job Centre and was interviewed and hired on the same day.

From the outset, he found a lack of clarity in his role. He had one day’s training during the first week and a further 1 to 2 days training.

 On 8 October 2023, he discovered he was meant to have an ambulatory on-call role without having received specific training. He sought some flexibility in rostering but had an air unease about the business. He objected to completion of some tasks for lack of specific training. He had a disagreement with the Operations Mager and wondered if he had been fired when he was asked to leave the office? This was denied.

The worker was informed that he had missed some tasks but took issue with this. He was unsure who his line manager was.

The Worker exhibited an e-mail sent to his employer at 22.20 hrs on 10 November 2023, which concluded in him flagging.

“I do not want to raise any grievance, but if I am challenged again on something I could not possibly know, I will act “

The Worker attended a Video Call regarding “Deployment “on 21 November 2023. He learned that he was to be terminated during his Probationary period due to “staff numbers and business challenges “on a last in first out basis.

The Worker has rejected this reasoning offered and argued that there was and still is sufficient scope within the business to retain him in employment. He received a week in lieu of notice.

The Worker contended that he had been assured that the employment would be of at least three months duration. He understood he was not to be charged for training received in Security.

The Worker maintained that he had been unfairly dismissed during his probation as his termination could not be linked to his performance. He was denied a written reason for his dismissal. He had made repeated unsuccessful attempts to secure re engagement at the business.

He exhibited an email from the Employer which confirmed on November 23, 2023.

“This is failed probation, not related to performance “

The Worker argued that the Employer had misrepresented the circumstances of his dismissal, and he was troubled when the Job Centre subsequently suggested that he apply to this Employer for work.

At hearing, the Worker confirmed that he had not initiated a grievance internally at the business, but he carried a powerful sense of injustice as to how he had been treated.

He had been approached to cover damage to a van and he was committed to his security training.

He was unable to demonstrate jobs he had sought outside of jobs with the Employer.

The Worker sought compensation for the manner in which he had been treated.

The Employer operates a Security business and accepts that Worker was employed as a full time General Operative for the period 7 October 2023 to 22 November 2023. Access to front line security officer was contingent on completion of a trainee programme and PSA licence. The job did not carry supervisory duties.

The Employer has rejected the claim of unfair dismissal and contends that the Worker cannot progress a claim for statutory unfair dismissal for lack of 12-month service.

The Employer exhibited a Statement of Main Terms of Employment, required by employment legislation. This was dated 3 October 2023.

“Your duties include all those duties that fall within this job title (see attached job description) in relation to the Company’s business ….”

The employment was subject to a probationary period of 6 months, extendable by employer discretion.

“Termination of this agreement within the probationary period will be at the discretion of the company and in the event that a termination occurs, you will receive one weeks’ notice … “

On 21 November 2023, the Worker was informed that his position was no longer available as a business review had informed a reduction in staff. Redeployments followed and accommodated staff with longer service than the Worker.

It was the Employers case that the Worker accepted this information without question. He requested “an officially stamped written communication from the Employer as to why exactly my employment was terminated inside the probation period? “

The Employer confirmed that the termination occurred in accordance with the terms of the contract of employment.

On the following day, November 22, 2023, the Worker sought “the reasoning behind the decision “

The Employer confirmed that the employment ended “This is a failed probation related to performance “

This was later clarified, following the intervention of the General Manager as

“This is a failed probation, not related to performance “

An earlier issue surrounding a damaged vehicle remained unresolved.

The Employer then received correspondence from the Worker dated February 13, 2024, which indicated that he was pursuing a legal complaint of wrongful dismissal.

The Employer contended that the Worker accepted the reason given for his exit from the company at the time of occurrence.

The Company invested 4 days in training and induction in the role of General Operative / car park attendant and patrol driver.

The Contract was terminated in accordance with the contract and on one weeks’ notice.

The Employer accepts that it has advertised for other roles, but none within the workers skillset.

It was the Company position that it followed its own procedures and acted fairly towards the Worker.

The Worker was supported in securing his PSA licence. The Company did not pursue the van damage, and the worker was not involved in any disciplinary procedure.

The Worker did not challenge the decision to terminate his employment during that employment.

The Employer disputed the need to pay compensation.

I requested that the Employer provide proof of the Induction record to co incide with the exhibited training records

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

This claim comes to me as a Dispute under the Industrial Relations Act 1969. It is a relatively informal process where parties are heard in private and any Recommendation, I may make is anonymised for the attention of the Parties.

The Dispute in this case concerns the manner in which an employment ended in November 2023. The Worker placed the Employer on notice of his intention to pursue a Wrongful Dismissal case in February 2024. This is an avenue that involves a High Court action and is not Industrial Relations, which is aimed at trying a fix a problem in employment.

This is an Industrial Relations Dispute, and I have investigated it accordingly.

I found a sharp lack of clarity in the job the worker accepted. This was not defined to my satisfaction and really goes to the root of this Dispute.

The Worker understood that he came to work to take on supervisory duties which was strongly contested by the Employer, who insisted that the worker was a general operative until he had concluded his PSA licence.

I found several occasions where the Worker freely admitted that he felt he was out of his depth and felt unsupported.

He demonstrated an awareness of the grievance procedure, but did not action a grievance during his employment.

He did not provide a reason for this omission.

I accept the Workers recall of a disagreement between him and his managers early on in his employment.

I would have liked to have been in a position to consider the requested Induction form. This may have helped me understand how the Probation was structured at the business.

While I understand that the Worker relied on a letter of comfort raised for the Mortgage. He pointed to an expectation of three months’ work.

However, the Probation clause in the Statement of Terms of Employment is of crucial importance in this case and overtakes a letter of comfort for a Mortgage.

A Probation is a trial for both Employer and Worker. It is an opportunity to explore whether the employment works for both Parties and not.

On this occasion, the Employer has relied on the negative influence of market forces which prompted a reduction in staff in November 2023.

They contended that the Worker was not a sufficient fit for rehiring.

The Worker disputed this and argued that the Job centre had suggested he reapply.

I did not receive a record of probation or minutes of any of the discussions/ meetings which appear to have placed this employment on a rocky footing. Instead, I received a series of emails which certainly capture a disagreement between the Parties. The email of 10 November 2023 sent at 22.20 hrs from the Workers email is key here.

Equally, the workers acceptance of his termination dated 22 November 2023 is of note.

It is regrettable that the Employer gave mixed messages in the reasoning behind the termination.

However, an Employer is permitted to call time on an employment within a probationary period. The Worker holds the same right.

However, for the purposes of this Industrial Relations Dispute, fairness, and reasonableness matter too.

I have reflected on the claim for compensation for an unfair dismissal.

I accept that the Employer provided training to the worker, supported him in securing his PSA licence and did not move to recoup monies arising from van damage.

However, I found a defined lack of detail in the Probationary framework which would have been well served by an enclosed document which recorded interactions with the Worker during this trial period. I have found that management of probation fell short of best practice.

I was not provided with a Workforce Census which proved that the head count was reduced during the period of November 2023.

The Labour Court in a section 20 referral in

Artmax and A Worker LCR 23094

The Court found against the Worker on that occasion.

The Court considered the early termination of an IT Infrastructure Engineer and found that the job offer had been subject to the successful completion of a six-month probationary period and the worker did not have the required skills to complete the role.

“His contract was terminated in line with the terms of his contract. He was paid one week’s pay in lieu of notice “

In this case, the Worker was not provided with a sufficient detail of the job he accepted, and this brought him into an early conflict with his employer.

He was fully aware of his right to raise a grievance, but did not do so. This is fatal to his claim as I must be sure that a worker has exhausted whatever internal procedures on conflict resolution that were open to him, prior to referring his case to the WRC.

I have not found certainty in the Employers position surrounding reduction in headcount.

I note the extensive delay in submitting this case to the WRC and the lack of back up records of looking for new work.

In all of the circumstances, I conclude that following a very frail probation, the worker was indeed terminated in line with the terms of the probationary clause on the statement of Terms.

He accepted this termination and did not challenge it.

I do not find merit in this claim for unfair dismissal.

Termination of Employment during Probation.