Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

An Employee

An Employer

Representatives

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969

CA-00073319

10/07/2025

The Worker commenced employment with the Employer on 21 October 2024 in the role of 3PL and Distribution Manager EMEA. His employment was terminated on 8 July 2025, when he had less than one year’s service. He was paid in lieu of his contractual two-month notice period.

The Worker contends that the termination was effected without warning or fair procedures. The Employer maintains that the decision followed an accumulation of concerns regarding his conduct, communication, leadership and operational performance.

The Worker commenced employment with the Employer on 21 October 2024 in the role of 3PL and Distribution Manager EMEA. He was employed in a senior operational role with responsibility for third-party logistics, distribution operations, operational delivery, cost control and the management of a team of approximately 14 to 15 employees. He earned €80,000 per annum plus a bonus.

The Worker submitted that he was recruited because of his substantial experience in logistics and third-party warehouse operations. He stated that the principal objective initially assigned to him was to ensure that the Employer’s third-party logistics operation was ready to commence shipping on 1 February 2025. He maintained that this objective was achieved.

The Worker completed a six-month probationary period. By email dated 20 May 2025, the Employer confirmed that he had successfully completed probation. He also received a bonus of €500 in recognition of his dedication throughout and outstanding contribution to the Order Consolidation Project.

The Worker was invited to what he understood to be his regular weekly one-to-one operational meeting with his manager on 8 July 2025. The meeting had already been scheduled in his diary as a weekly catch-up. He had not been advised that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss his employment or that a representative of the Employer’s Human Resources Department would attend. The Human Resources representative joined the remote Teams meeting at the commencement of the call. During that meeting, the Worker was informed that his employment was being terminated with immediate effect.

The Worker stated that his manager read a short statement referring in general terms to alleged concerns regarding his performance, conduct and communication style. The Human Resources representative then confirmed the termination on behalf of the Human Resources Department. The Worker estimated that the meeting lasted approximately ten minutes.

The Worker stated that he asked for specific examples of the alleged deficiencies but was not given any concrete particulars. He also asked whether he could challenge or appeal the decision and was expressly informed that the decision was final. He was told that the termination would be confirmed in writing and that the Employer’s information technology department would contact him regarding the return of company property. His access to the Employer’s systems was withdrawn immediately after the meeting.

The written termination letter was sent to the Worker’s personal email address shortly after the meeting. The termination letter referred to concerns regarding performance, conduct and communication. The Worker was paid in lieu of his contractual two-month notice period.

The Worker submitted that no performance or conduct concerns were raised with him before his dismissal. He denied that he had been warned, verbally or in writing, about his communication style, behaviour, operational performance or management of employees.

He stated that he was not given any objectives, targets, key performance indicators or a performance improvement plan. He was not informed that his employment was at risk and was not invited to a disciplinary or capability meeting. He stated that the Employer’s disciplinary and performance procedures had been referred to during his online induction and that he understood that concerns would be formally raised, discussed and recorded before disciplinary action was taken.

The Worker disputed the allegations contained in the termination letter. In relation to the returns process, he stated that the process was operational and had been communicated to relevant stakeholders. He maintained that instructions concerning the process had been issued and that the process was being managed by one of the managers reporting to him. He stated that the returns process was mentioned during the termination meeting but that he was not given any opportunity to respond to the allegation.

The Worker maintained that he worked extensive hours, travelled in accordance with the requirements of his role and made himself available outside normal working hours and at weekends. He stated that all annual leave had been approved and was within his contractual entitlement. He rejected the suggestion that travel or annual leave had been used as an excuse for failing to complete work.

The Worker also denied that his communication had been aggressive, dismissive or unprofessional. He accepted that his communication style could be direct but maintained that it was appropriate to the operational nature of his role and had never previously been identified as a problem. He denied that he had ever been advised to use artificial intelligence tools to review the tone of his written communications.

The Worker submitted that the termination meeting was the first occasion on which he became aware that the Employer considered there to be serious concerns regarding his performance or conduct.

The Worker contended that the dismissal was predetermined and communicated as a fait accompli. He maintained that, having completed probation, he was entitled to the application of the Employer’s normal procedures. He stated that many of the allegations subsequently contained in the Employer’s written submission had never been raised with him during his employment or at the termination meeting. He submitted that he was not afforded an opportunity to defend his professional reputation or good name.

The Worker described the significant financial and personal consequences of the dismissal. He stated that, following the termination of his employment, he registered with employment websites in Ireland and the Netherlands, searched LinkedIn for suitable vacancies and circulated his curriculum vitae to professional contacts established during his career. At the hearing, he stated that he had received a verbal offer of employment at a salary comparable to his former salary, with an anticipated commencement date in May 2026. He stated that, if the proposed employment commenced as anticipated, he would have been without employment for approximately ten months.

The Worker stated that he was the sole income earner for his family and that the family used its savings to meet living expenses following the termination of his employment. He and his family were required to leave their rented accommodation in Ireland and return to the Netherlands, where they resided with a family member. They also withdrew an offer to purchase a home.

The Employer submitted that the Worker was employed from 21 October 2024 until 8 July 2025 in a senior operational leadership role involving significant autonomy and responsibility. His duties included oversight of third-party logistics, distribution performance, customer-service interfaces, cost control and the management of employees.

The Employer stated that the dismissal did not arise from one isolated incident. It followed an accumulation of concerns relating to the Worker’s conduct, attitude, leadership, communication, safety awareness, judgement and operational performance. The Employer maintained that the termination was a legitimate business decision taken in good faith after trust and confidence in the Worker’s suitability for the role had broken down.

The Employer submitted that concerns had been raised informally with the Worker during his employment. It stated that the Worker had been given feedback regarding aggressive and dismissive communication, his interactions with colleagues, expenditure and his failure to deliver important operational responsibilities.

The Employer maintained that the Worker reacted defensively to feedback and demonstrated limited willingness to reflect upon the effect of his behaviour.

The Employer referred to concerns raised by colleagues regarding the Worker’s tone and manner during meetings and telephone calls. It stated that his manager spoke to him about these matters during a meeting in May 2025 and advised him to be conscious of how his communication was perceived. The Worker’s manager stated that a number of stakeholders had described his communication as unprofessional or condescending and that she had coached him to adopt a softer tone.

The Employer accepted at the hearing that no formal meeting was held regarding these matters, that the feedback was not recorded in writing and that the Worker was not informed that his employment was at risk. The Employer submitted that, given the Worker’s level of seniority, a feedback discussion with his manager should have been sufficient.

The Employer also relied upon reports that the Worker had driven above the permitted speed on a company site, incurred excessive travel and accommodation costs, made unauthorised commitments regarding home-office equipment and failed to comply with procurement and approval requirements.

The Employer alleged that the Worker had failed adequately to manage the performance of the third-party logistics provider, did not demonstrate sufficient understanding of operational processes and delegated responsibilities without appropriate oversight.

It also referred to alleged delays in implementing a customer returns process, an ASN tracking tool, employee pay and title changes, and arrangements for business continuity during an employee’s annual leave.

The Employer stated that some of the Worker’s operational responsibilities had been reassigned in May or June 2025 to allow him to focus more specifically on the management of third-party logistics. It maintained that the Worker’s performance did not improve following that change.

The Employer acknowledged that the Worker had completed probation and had received a bonus in respect of a particular project. It submitted, however, that the bonus reflected his contribution to a defined deliverable and did not amount to an endorsement of his overall performance, conduct or suitability for a senior leadership position.

The Employer considered placing the Worker on a performance improvement plan. It concluded, however, that the principal concerns related to attitude, interpersonal conduct and leadership style rather than technical competence. It formed the view that a performance improvement plan or progressive disciplinary process would not resolve the underlying problems.

At the hearing, the Employer stated that it did not consider a formal disciplinary process appropriate because it believed that such a process would delay matters and cause further stress. It accepted that no performance improvement plan, disciplinary process or other formal procedure was put in place.

The Employer further accepted that the decision to terminate the Worker’s employment was made following discussions involving the Worker’s manager, senior management and Human Resources approximately one or two weeks before the meeting on 8 July 2025. The termination letter was prepared in advance. The Employer confirmed that the purpose of the meeting on 8 July 2025 was to inform the Worker of the decision already made.

The Employer submitted that trust and confidence in the Worker’s ability to perform the senior role had broken down. It considered the termination to be proportionate, having regard to the Worker’s short service, the seniority of the role and the seriousness of the concerns. The Worker was paid in lieu of his contractual two-month notice period.

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

While the Worker did not have the requisite service to pursue a complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977–2015, this does not negate his entitlement to fair procedures in the context of the termination of his employment.

The Worker commenced employment on 21 October 2024. His contract provided for a probationary period of six months. The Worker successfully completed that probationary period on 24 April 2025 and this was confirmed to him in writing by the Employer on 20 May 2025. His employment was subsequently terminated on 8 July 2025. This was not, therefore, a case in which the Employer decided during an extant probationary period that the Worker was unsuitable for permanent employment.

The Employer remained entitled, following the completion of probation, to address any genuine concerns regarding the Worker’s conduct, performance, leadership or suitability for the position. Completion of probation did not guarantee continued employment or prevent the Employer from taking appropriate action in respect of legitimate concerns, whether they arose before or after the completion of probation. The concerns relied upon, however, were required to be addressed through a process consistent with natural justice, fair procedures and accepted standards of good industrial relations practice.

The Employer presented a substantial catalogue of concerns regarding the Worker’s communication style, professional behaviour, leadership, operational oversight, expenditure, safety awareness, availability and delivery of key processes. The Employer maintained that these concerns had accumulated over time and had caused it to lose trust and confidence in the Worker’s ability to fulfil a senior operational role.

Some of the matters identified by the Employer were potentially serious. If established following an appropriate process, they may have justified performance management, disciplinary action or, depending upon the circumstances, the termination of the employment relationship. The central issue in this dispute is not whether the Employer was entitled to hold concerns about the Worker. It is whether the Employer acted fairly before reaching and implementing the decision to terminate his employment.

S.I. No. 146/2000, the Industrial Relations Act 1990 (Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures) (Declaration) Order 2000, provides that procedures for dealing with disciplinary matters must comply with the general principles of natural justice and fair procedures. Those principles include that details of allegations or complaints are put to the employee concerned, that the employee is given a full opportunity to respond, that the employee is afforded the opportunity to be represented and that there is a fair and impartial determination of the issues, taking account of the employee’s representations and all other relevant evidence and circumstances.

In C & W O’Brien Architects Limited v A Worker, LCR22301, the Labour Court reiterated that an employer is not relieved of the obligation to act fairly during a probationary period and stated that the requirements of the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures must be complied with before any decision is taken to dismiss a worker during probation. In Brampton Care Ltd v A Worker, LCR22255, where the worker had successfully completed probation before his employment was terminated, the Labour Court was satisfied that the employer had failed to adhere to the requirements of the Code of Practice before deciding to dismiss him and concluded that he had been treated unfairly in the manner in which his employment was terminated. Those principles are directly relevant in the present case, where the Worker had completed probation and the Employer relied upon allegations encompassing both performance and conduct.

The Employer submitted that feedback had been provided to the Worker informally, including a discussion in May 2025 concerning the tone and manner of his communications. The Worker disputed that he had been told that his communication was aggressive or unprofessional. I accept that employers are not required to formalise every routine management discussion or piece of feedback. There is, however, an important distinction between informal coaching or feedback intended to guide an employee and a clear notification that the Employer regards the employee’s conduct or performance as unacceptable and that continued employment is in jeopardy.

At the hearing, the Employer accepted that no formal performance, capability or conduct meeting had taken place, that nothing had been put in writing to the Worker and that he had not been informed that his employment was at risk. The Employer’s evidence was that, at the Worker’s level of seniority, an informal feedback discussion ought to have been sufficient. I do not accept that proposition in circumstances where the Employer subsequently relied upon an extensive range of alleged performance and conduct deficiencies to terminate his employment.

The evidence does not establish that the Worker was informed before 8 July 2025 of the full nature, extent or seriousness of the concerns subsequently relied upon to justify the termination of his employment. He was not furnished with a written account of the alleged deficiencies. He was not informed that his employment was at risk. He was not placed on a structured performance improvement plan, given clearly defined standards or afforded a reasonable period within which to demonstrate improvement.

The Employer submitted that it considered a performance improvement plan but concluded that such a process would not address the principal issues because they related predominantly to the Worker’s attitude, interpersonal conduct and leadership style rather than his technical capability. At the hearing, the Employer further stated that it did not consider a disciplinary process appropriate because such a process would delay matters and cause additional stress. It therefore decided to terminate the employment without invoking either process.

The Employer’s decision not to invoke either a performance or disciplinary process did not displace its obligation to act fairly. Administrative convenience, a desire to avoid delay or a management view that a formal process would not produce the desired outcome cannot justify the removal of basic procedural protections. If the concerns were regarded as matters of conduct, the allegations should have been identified and put clearly to the Worker so that he could respond before any decision was taken. If they were regarded as performance or capability concerns, the Worker should ordinarily have been informed of the deficiencies, the required standards and the consequences of failing to improve.

The Employer characterised the termination as arising from an overall assessment of the Worker’s suitability and a breakdown in trust and confidence, rather than as a disciplinary sanction imposed in respect of any single allegation. I do not accept that this characterisation removed the requirement to afford fair procedures. The decision was expressly based upon alleged deficiencies in the Worker’s performance and conduct, including specific allegations concerning his behaviour, judgement and discharge of his responsibilities. Irrespective of the label applied to the process, those matters were adverse to the Worker and were relied upon to terminate his employment. Basic fairness therefore required that they be put to him and that his response be considered before any final decision was made.

Many of the matters relied upon by the Employer were never put to the Worker before his dismissal. These included allegations relating to excessive expenditure, speeding on a company site, unauthorised procurement commitments, communications with named colleagues, the management of the third-party logistics provider, the customer returns process, waste disposal, customer commitments, operational availability and failures to complete or oversee particular projects. The Employer did not establish that the specific allegations contained in its written submission had been put to the Worker either during his employment or at the termination meeting.

The Worker was not provided with the particulars of those allegations or with the evidence upon which the Employer relied. No investigation meeting took place. He was not invited to a disciplinary, capability or formal performance meeting. He was not advised of a right to representation and was not afforded a meaningful opportunity to answer the case against him before the decision to dismiss was made.

The Worker attended what he understood to be his regular weekly one-to-one operational meeting with his manager on 8 July 2025. He was not informed in advance that the meeting concerned the termination of his employment or that a representative of the Employer’s Human Resources Department would attend.

The Employer accepted at the hearing that the decision to dismiss had been made following discussions approximately one or two weeks earlier and that the termination letter had been prepared before the meeting. It further accepted that the purpose of the meeting was to inform the Worker of the decision already made.

According to the Worker, the meeting lasted approximately ten minutes. The Worker was informed in general terms that his employment was being terminated for reasons relating to performance, conduct and communication. He sought examples and asked whether he could appeal. He was not provided with specific particulars and was informed that the decision was final. His access to the Employer’s information technology systems was withdrawn immediately after the meeting.

I am therefore satisfied that the meeting was not convened to investigate the concerns, hear the Worker’s response or determine what action, if any, should follow. It was convened solely to communicate a predetermined decision.

The termination letter referred to clear expectations, prior discussions and a failure to demonstrate sustained improvement. However, the Employer did not establish that the Worker had previously been given sufficient particulars of the concerns, a clear warning that his employment was in jeopardy or a reasonable opportunity to address the matters relied upon.

The Worker was not afforded any right of appeal. An appeal would have provided an opportunity for the decision and the underlying allegations to be reviewed by a person not previously involved, with the benefit of the Worker’s response. The absence of an appeal compounded the procedural deficiencies.

I have also had regard to the fact that the Worker had recently completed probation and had received a bonus for his contribution to a particular project, both of which were confirmed in writing on 20 May 2025. The letter concerning the bonus was issued by the Vice President, iEMEA, under the heading “Thank You for Your Outstanding Contribution to the Order Consolidation Project”. It expressly thanked the Worker for his dedication and stated that his efforts had been key to the successful completion of the project. It further referred to his “commitment, expertise, and collaborative spirit” and stated that his contribution had helped the Employer become more customer-focused. I accept the Employer’s submission that the payment of a project-specific bonus did not necessarily amount to an endorsement of every aspect of the Worker’s performance, conduct or leadership. Nonetheless, the successful completion of probation and the terms in which his contribution was recognised by a senior officer of the Employer are relevant context. They underscore the need for the Employer to explain clearly how and why its assessment of the Worker had changed so significantly within a relatively short period and to give him a proper opportunity to address the concerns before terminating his employment.

It is not my function under section 13 of the 1969 Act to conduct retrospectively the investigation, disciplinary or performance process which ought to have occurred within the employment. I therefore reach no definitive conclusions as to the truth or otherwise of each substantive allegation advanced by the Employer. In particular, I do not conclude that the Worker’s performance was satisfactory merely because the Employer failed to establish its concerns through a fair process. I accept that the Employer may have held genuine concerns regarding the Worker’s performance, conduct and suitability for the role. Those concerns were not, however, tested through any process which afforded the Worker the basic protections required by natural justice and fair procedures.

Applying the principles identified by the Labour Court to the facts of this dispute, I am satisfied that there was a fundamental defect in the Employer’s decision-making process. The Worker was not put on notice that his employment was at risk, was not informed of the case against him in a sufficiently clear or structured manner, was not afforded an opportunity to respond or improve, was not offered representation and was not provided with an appeal.

I conclude that the Worker was treated unfairly in the manner in which his employment was terminated and that the Employer failed to comply with the principles set out in the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures.

I have had regard to the impact of the termination upon the Worker. I am satisfied that he actively sought alternative employment through recruitment websites, LinkedIn and professional contacts. At the date of the hearing, he had received a verbal offer of employment at a comparable salary, with an anticipated commencement date in May 2026. On the Worker’s evidence, if that employment commenced as anticipated, he would have been without employment for approximately ten months.

I also accept that, as a consequence of the loss of income, he and his family were required to leave Ireland and return to the Netherlands, where they were residing with a family member.

In determining the appropriate recommendation, I have taken account of the Worker’s claimed financial losses and the significant personal and financial disruption caused by the termination. I have balanced those matters against the Worker’s relatively short service, the payment of two months’ salary in lieu of notice, the seniority of his position and the fact that the Employer maintained that it held genuine concerns regarding his performance, judgement and suitability. I have also taken account of the Worker’s evidence that the proposed employment, if it commenced as anticipated, would be remunerated at a salary comparable to that which he received from the Employer. I do not consider reinstatement or re-engagement appropriate given the evident breakdown in the employment relationship.