Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

An employee

An employer

Representatives

  Self

No Appearance

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

IR - SC - 00003480

27/11/2024

The Worker alleges that her dismissed during her probationary period, in the absence of any prior warnings, reviews or notice was unfair. There was no appearance by the Respondent

The Worker was employed by the Respondent on the 10th June 2024. 
She was hired as a Graphic Designer. During her interview process she discussed in detail, her experience and skill level as a designer. She presented the company with her portfolio which showed her skill in projects she had worked on. The company also hired a Senior designer onto her team. The Worker did not hold a senior title for her role as there was a clear understanding of the level of performance she was employed for. She considers the dismissal of her employment to be unfair.  She deems  the reasons given for her termination to be unacceptable  and/or unjustified. In relation to performance concerns and notice, it was her understanding that if there were issues with her performance, these should have been flagged to her at the three-month review point during her probationary period.  No such meeting occurred. Additionally, she did not receive the weekly one-to-one meetings that were intended to discuss her progress, and she was not made aware of any concerns prior to this decision that would justify the termination.

There were no warnings written or otherwise.  In any email she received, there was no mention or indication that it was a formal written warning or that it carried the possibility of termination. Clear feedback and a chance to improve with the understanding of these instances would lead to her termination would have been fair and in line with standard practices.

The worker suffered financial hardship as a result of the termination. The lack of adequate notice that she was not performing at adequate level place her in a very difficult financial position. She relocated to Cork for this position, during a time of great difficulty to find housing, very high rent and cost of living. She was not given sufficient time to prepare for this sudden change, which has significant implications for her livelihood. It took the worker six months to find a new position. She exhausted all options in this jurisdiction but in the end had to move to the UK.

The worker has since discovered that no one in the Cork office was informed of her termination, and as a result, she had to seek information herself. This lack of communication added to the confusion and stress surrounding this situation.

There was no appearance for or on behalf of the Respondent at the hearing today. The Respondent did contact the WRC indicating that they were not going to be in attendance.

There was no appearance for or on behalf of the Respondent. I am satisfied that the Respondent was on notice of the date, time and venue of the hearing due to the fact that they corresponded with he WRC indicating that they would not be in attendance.

In the course of my investigation, I have carefully considered all relevant submissions and evidence presented by the Worker.

The worker has brought her claim under the Industrial Relations Acts, asserting that her dismissal was unfair.  Specifically, she contends that the Respondent mishandled her probationary period by failing to conduct one-on-one meetings and performance reviews. The worker argues that this failure to provide feedback on her performance ultimately led to her dismissal. She claims that, had she been informed that her performance did not meet the Respondent's expectations, she would have had the opportunity to address and rectify any deficiencies. Instead, she asserts that she was deprived of the opportunity to improve her performance due to the Respondent's lack of communication.

The case of Donal O'Donovan v. Over-C-Technology Limited and Over-C- Limited (IECA 37) is instructive in this matter. In that case, Costello J. held that:

"During a period of probation, both parties are – and must be – free to terminate the contract of employment for no reason, or simply because one party forms the view that the intended employment is, for whatever reason, not something with which they wish to continue. Neither party can hold the other to the continuation of the employment against the wishes of the other. I do not accept that a court can imply a right to fair procedures – still less uphold a cause of action for the breach of such an alleged right – in relation to the assessment of an employee’s performance by an employer (other than for misconduct, which does not arise here) during the probationary period, as this would negate the whole purpose of a probationary period."

Costello J. further stated:

“If an employer has a contractual right – in this case a clear, express right – to dismiss an employee on notice without providing any reason, the court cannot imply a term that dismissal may only occur if fair procedures have been afforded to the employee, save where the dismissal is for misconduct.”

While I acknowledge the worker’s frustration at not being given the opportunity to address concerns regarding her performance, the legal framework does not require an employer to provide regular feedback or to give an employee an opportunity to improve during the probationary period. Ideally, employees in such probationary periods should receive regular feedback to identify their strengths, weaknesses, and areas requiring improvement. However, the absence of such feedback, while regrettable and potentially unfair from a practical perspective, does not, in this instance, constitute a legal violation. The Respondent was fully entitled to dismiss the worker in accordance with the terms of her probationary contract.

Given the circumstances, I find no grounds for making any recommendations in this case.