LCR23094

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Referral under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969.

BACKGROUND:

The Worker referred this case to the Labour Court on 28 May 2024 in accordance with Section 20 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, and agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.

A Labour Court hearing took place on 06 December 2024.

RECOMMENDATION:

The Worker commenced employment with this employer on 20 May 2024 as an IT Infrastructure Engineer.

The Worker stated that he believed he was dismissed on 28 May 2024 because during his first week in employment he was absent on certified sick leave for three days. The Worker stated that he does not accept the position put by the Employer that the reason his employment came to an end was because he did not have the expertise on ‘Azure’ that they required. It was his submission that he had made it known at the interview stage that he had not worked on that particular platform in over two years.

He also denied that he was immediately on commencement of work, provided with two login credentials to access all necessary IT systems.  

Following his return to work after his absence on sick leave he was invited to a meeting where he was informed, he was being let go and was sent a letter confirming same.

The Employer submitted that familiarity of the Azure platform was a key requirement of the job and that was spelt out in the advertisement for the position and at interview. They did not have the capacity to train someone in on the system. Shortly after he commenced employment the Worker was asked to login into the system. At this point it became clear to the Employer that he did not have the required familiarity with the system. This lack of familiarity was the sole reason why his employment was terminated after such a short period. 

The fact that the Worker had been absent on three days certified sick leave was not a factor in the decision to end the employment. The job offer had been subject to the successful completion of a six-month probationary period.  The Worker did not have the required skills to carry out the role. His employment was terminated and in line with the terms of his contract he was paid one week’s pay in lieu of notice.

Having carefully considered both the written and oral submissions of the parties, the Court does not recommend concession of the worker’s claim.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Louise O'Donnell
AL	______________________
6th January 2025	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Amy Leonard, Court Secretary.