Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

An Electrical Apprentice

An Electrical Services Company

Representatives

  Appeared In Person

 Appeared In Person

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Section 13, Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00064050-001

11 June 2024

On 11 June 2024, the Worker in this case, a Final year Apprentice Electrician submitted a Dispute under the Industrial Relations Act ,1969, that his employment had ceased the day previous due to performance issues.

The Employer operates an Electrical business and while notified of the Dispute on 19 June 2024, did not object to an Investigation by an Adjudicator.

The case was listed for hearing on 22 October 2024 on the Remote Platform.

The Worker came to hearing speaking in his own case and was satisfied to do so. The Employer was represented by two Operations Managers.

I had written to both Parties on 16 October 2024 seeking written submissions to capture the chronology in the case and to review any documents which the Partiers intended on relying on.

I received an apology for nonattendance by the HR Manager and a collection of loosely assembled documents and work-related photographs from the Workers tenure.

The Worker did not prepare a written submission but was afforded an opportunity to send it in post hearing, which he did. There were overlaps in both submissions.

The Employer did not make any response within 14 days of receipt of this submission.

I did request a copy of the company handbook, but did not receive it.

I apologise for my delay in submitting this Recommendation  which was due to unexpected sick leave.

The Worker introduced himself on his complaint form as a 4th year Apprentice Electrician who worked for this Employer from October 30, 2023, until the day he received notice of his termination of employment by telephone on June 10, 2024. He received one weeks’ pay in lieu of notice.

The Worker had been engaged in the College component of the course since April 2024. He was due back to work on completion of his exams.

The Worker was informed that following a Peer Review and 6-month probation that he was not progressing as a fourth-year apprentice was expected to progress. This had not been predated by any disciplinary action and the worker sought an explanation from his employer.

The worker was provided with details of work in which the employer recorded their dissatisfaction.

The Worker detailed a long-standing acrimonious working relationship with the qualified electrician he worked with. The worker contended that he had been wrongly cast as an underperformer and instead was a victim of an unsupportive and unduly critical Electrician.

At hearing, the worker outlined that in 2023, while engaged in apprenticeship, he was on leave from another employer, when he met the owner of this business on 26 October 2023. He accepted the job and commenced the following Monday.

He described a period of disharmony where the Electrician became irritated by him, even when things were not his fault. He took pictures himself to reassure himself of  his own work completion.

He described feeling abandoned and isolated and he struggled to complete tasks not previously undertaken .

He reflected a high level of distrust against the qualified electrician, whom he complained to his umbrella  body.

He confirmed that he had not challenged this discontent through an internal grievance procedure or through a link liaison person at his college.

He had planned on a career in Electrics and was shocked when the Operations Manager told him that he was no longer needed. He countered that he had not participated in any Probation meeting and was informed that he didn’t need to be there.

At the time of his dismissal, he had not been at the business for almost three months and was met with 4 key issues of concern which he disagreed with.

He did try to challenge the dismissal but was not heard. He signed on with DSP and found new work three weeks before the hearing. The termination caused him unforeseen financial challenges for which he sought compensation in respect of three months of unemployment.

The Worker has now completed and passed his academic exams.

In response to the Adjudicator questions, he was unaware of the presence of a course troubleshooter to address “on the job conflict “with a supervisor. He was clear that he expected to be a participant in his own probation, which ought to have been deferred during his “block release “. He recalled having a discussion at contract stage with the owner and the human resource manager which informed his view that probation would pause to accommodate the college component of the course.

The Worker carried a deep sense of injustice in this case and has made a number of complaints to external bodies, in addition to placing a negative review online regarding how apprentices are treated at the business.

In closing he disputed the Employers contention that he had not sought to influence a change in the decision to let him go.

The Employer operates a large Electrical business of 90 employees. The Employer was represented by two of their Senior Managers and the claim was disputed.

Prior to hearing in this case , the employer submitted  a Statement of Terms of Employment signed by both parties  on 7 November 2023, a copy of the email shared with the worker on 10 June 2024 which confirmed the cessation of his employment .This was accompanied by a series of photos of what looked like electrical work .

The Employer outlined that the worker had been unsuccessful in his probation. This followed a peer review with the Electrician to whom the worker was assigned , which in  turn had  informed his process of probation.

 This was the sole reason for the termination of employment. The Worker received payment in lieu of notice. The Employer saw no basis to award compensation in respect of a failed probation.

The Employer contended that the worker had not sought to reverse this outcome directly or indirectly. He did not ask the employer to reverse this position.

The Employer took issue with the workers claim of falsified records.

They confirmed that they had not received any follow up from the external bodies referred to in the workers narrative. The company was unaware of the turbulent working relationship which the worker outlined at hearing as he had not raised any specific grievances during the course of the employment.

It was the Employers case that the worker had signed receipt of the staff handbook on 23 November 2023.

He was one of a number of apprentice plumbers and electricians at the business.

Probation was of an initial 6-month duration as set out at Section 5 of the handbook. The Employer had not maintained a probation log but undertook to submit a copy of the handbook.

It was  the Employers case that the worker was not suitable for the companys needs and it was reasonable for them to conclude that the probation had not been successful .

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

I have listened carefully to both Parties narratives in this case. I found variances in both Parties recollection of events. Both were equally divided on the anticipated duration of the employment .

This case has been processed  under the Industrial Relations Act 1969 as the Worker did not have sufficient service on which to ground a statutory claim for unfair dismissal.

A claim under the IR Act allows for both Parties to identify a means of how a dispute may be fixed, typically within a live employment . However, in this case, the employment has  ended and will not be rekindled at any time in the future.

As both Parties accepted that the worker was an apprentice, I looked for a guidance document on this apprenticeship. I wanted to know just where an apprentice with an interpersonal conflict with his mentor can go to address and resolve   this matter.

Neither Party could help me.

I was aware of the historical rules within the SEO but was unsure what , if anything had replaced these for Apprentices .

Neither Party was aware of any liaison or trouble shooting role from either the umbrella body of employers or the apprentice body for electricians.

I was then left to review the Statement of Terms of Employment, which was silent on intended duration of employment and most important silent on a clause of probation.

It was also silent on any umbrella grouping for Electricians or Apprentices.

I fully accept that this is an IR Dispute, but to assist both parties’ awareness of the current statutory position on Probation, can I invite you to read and review Section 6 d of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994. That is the statutory framework for probation.

From my investigation, I have established that probation was introduced as a 6-month duration. Nobody presented a probation report. Nobody explained that it was extended to facilitate the block release. Nobody recorded that extension. Nobody had a clear recall of actively participating in a probation process outside of the employers recall of the peer review. It was open to the worker to explore that option at any time .

Nobody really understood that the worker should have been heard in his own probation, even if it was to disagree, clarify or correct.

I am clear that the Worker did not participate in any probation process. I am satisfied that by conducting a peer review with a trained electrician, the employer adopted a reasonable validation of performance. However, the employer had no awareness of the interpersonal conflict, details of which were being  guarded by the worker.

I am also clear that the Employer had genuine concerns regarding the suitability of the worker for their business.

No grievance was raised during the employment. Given the high level of turbulence described by the worker, I find that he was obliged to raise these concerns during his employment. He was not aided by his silence.

I would have preferred if the apprentice body was on hand to assist the worker who by the conclusion of his employment had recorded 260 weeks of apprenticeship in excess of the 208 weeks, he said he required.

When the employment ended unexpectedly, the worker blamed his mentor and directed his delayed rancour towards him exclusively rather than a consideration of the concerns presented by the employer.

I accept that he requested and secured the details of his performance issues, albeit after the dismissal.

An appeal of the decision was neither offered nor actioned.

I have limited options in making a Recommendation in this case as the employment is over and closed.

I have reservations regarding the retaliatory complaints which postdated the cessation of employment. The worker did not formalise a complaint against his mentor Electrician, yet was assured an investigation would follow.

In reaching my conclusions, I found that the worker ,delayed to his detriment in raising his concerns regarding his Electrician colleague.

I found he lacked a visible defined link to the Apprentice body, who may have assisted to trouble shoot the workplace conflict.

I found that the retaliatory action of post dismissal complaints to external bodies to be overly  harsh.

I found that the Employer had not introduced the system of probation, outside of a plan to hold a 6-month probation. The worker was terminated almost 8 months into his employment, without a probation record or chance to put things right.

While I have reviewed all the photos and references to electrical details, as an Adjudicator, I am simply looking to check if what occurred here was fair or reasonable.

The topic of a correct procedural framework for dismissals for poor performance or misconduct have occupied many minds at this stage. There is no question of misconduct in this case .

As I have stated that this is a claim under the Industrial Relations Act.

I have found that the Employer held genuine concerns regarding the workers suitability for his role as a 4th year Apprentice.

However, I have found that they acted overly hastily in ceasing his employment in the manner they did.

There ought to have been a co-signed record of probation, inclusive  of specific notification of any extension. I found the workers exclusion to be unreasonable.

The worker erred in guarding his interpersonal conflict with his Mentor and neglecting to raise a grievance at the employment or through the apprentice body. I found the myriads of complaints and negative reviews to be a retaliatory action by him.

I would have preferred to see an effort to save this employment rather than an almost immediate referral to the WRC.

I have found some merit in this Dispute.

Cessation of Employment during probation