Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

A Voluntary Body

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969

CA-00066175-001

23/09/24

The worker was employed as an Administrative Supervisor from 29th July 2024 until 17th September 2024 when her employment ended during her probationary period. She was employed on a 12-month contract earning €670 per week. Her dispute is that she was unfairly dismissed. The employer maintains that her employment ended during the probationary period arising from her performance.

The worker outlined her brief period in the role. She was surprised when she attended a meeting on 17th September 2024 and was informed that her employment was ending. She said she was only becoming familiar with the work and organisation at this time. She acknowledged that there were some minor errors although this would be normal for any worker in the same circumstances. She was disappointed, particularly as she was approved for a training course taking place in October 2024. Despite her employment ending, she continued with the training course in October. She paid financed it and completed it on her own time. It took her 7-weeks to find alternative employment.

The employer outlined that the workers performance was not at the required standard. As the organisation receives public funding it is important that there are no errors. She worker was invited to a meeting on 13th September 2024 as there were errors in her work. At this meeting she was asked to do payroll duties the following week. These were not actioned correctly and included minor errors which were rectified by another staff member. The worker was then invited to a meeting on 17th September 2024. She was informed that she had failed her probationary period. Later that day, she was emailed with the decision in writing.

In conducting my investigation, I have considered all relevant submissions and information presented at the hearing.

It is well established that employers should document performance reviews during probationary periods, particularly if the performance is not at the required standard. At a meeting on 13th September 2024, performance was discussed and a payroll task assigned. There were no contemporaneous notes of this meeting. This can result in uncertainty as the worker is not alerted their job is in jeopardy due to performance. The dismissal letter of 17th September 2024 did not refer to the earlier performance review meeting on 13th September 2024. Prior to this, the worker had approval to attend a training course in October 2024.

As no contemporaneous notes existed arising from the meeting on 13th September 2024, it is likely the worker was surprised when her employment ended 4-days later. It is often the case that an employer or worker will have different expectations during a probationary period. The Labour Court has consistently found that the communication process needs to be fair. See Failte Energy Solutions Ltd v. A Worker LCR 23058, and Hamilton Insurance DAC v. A Worker LCR 22710.

In this case, the worker was approved for training which she continued with and financed herself after her employment ended. Due to the absence of contemporaneous notes alerting her that her job may be in jeopardy, she found herself unemployed with no prior notice.

Due to the subsequent expenses incurred by the worker in financing her training and finding alternative employment, I recommend that the employer should pay the worker compensation of €2,500 in full and final settlement of the dispute.

I recommend that the employer should pay the worker compensation of €2,500 in full and final settlement of the dispute.