Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

An Employee

A Hotel

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-00071429

08/05/2025

The Worker commenced employment with the Employer on 15 January 2025 as Deputy General Manager of the XXX Hotel. The XXX Hotel forms part of a wider hotel group which also operates a smaller sister property in the same city. The Worker’s employment terminated on 18 March 2025 during his probationary period and after approximately two months’ service.

As the Worker did not have the service necessary to pursue a complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977–2015, he referred a dispute to the WRC under section 13 of the 1969 Act, contending that he had been unfairly dismissed.

The Worker stated that he was informed on 18 March 2025 that his employment was being terminated with immediate effect. He stated that two matters were cited as reasons for the termination, namely issues arising from a client event held on 11 February 2025 and five bills which had allegedly been left open on 17 March 2025.

The Worker denied responsibility for the client event, stating that he was not present at the hotel on the day in question as he was attending a company event in Dublin. He maintained that he had passed all relevant information to the management team on duty and that responsibility for the set-up of the event rested with those who were working at the hotel. He similarly disputed responsibility for the five open bills, stating that he was not the manager responsible for closing the premises on that occasion.

The Worker maintained that he had never been advised that his performance was unsatisfactory and had not been subject to any formal performance management process, disciplinary process or probation review. He stated that he received no written warnings and no termination letter. While he recalled a conversation with the General Manager in February 2025 concerning management resources within the hotel, he denied that concerns regarding his own performance were raised.

The Worker further contended that the decision to terminate his employment had already been made before the meeting on 18 March 2025. In support of that contention, he noted that another individual was rostered to assume his duties the following morning. He also disputed the Employer’s assertion that he had been offered an alternative role within the group, maintaining that he was merely informed that a position might become available in the future and that he could apply for it.

The Worker stated that he actively sought alternative employment following the termination of his employment and ultimately secured employment at a significantly lower salary than that which he had earned with the Employer.

The Worker contended that he had been unfairly dismissed and sought compensation for his loss of earnings arising from the termination of his employment. He further stated that the circumstances of his departure had damaged his professional reputation, as others in the hospitality industry believed that he had been dismissed, which he contended adversely affected his ability to secure alternative employment.

The Employer maintained that the termination of the Worker’s employment arose from concerns regarding his suitability for the role of Deputy General Manager during his probationary period. It submitted that the position was a senior operational management role within a large and complex hotel operation and that the Worker had not demonstrated the level of leadership, operational oversight, ownership and follow-through which it considered necessary for the role.

The Employer referred to a series of issues which arose during the Worker’s employment, including concerns regarding the set-up of a client event on 11 February 2025, the management of restaurant reservations and staffing arrangements during the Valentine's Day period, guest complaints following a separate client event, matters relating to financial control procedures, delayed responses to operational emails, failures to complete rostering requirements in a timely manner and an alleged lack of follow-up on operational matters. The Employer submitted that these issues were discussed with the Worker during weekly meetings, operational walk-throughs and day-to-day management interactions and were reflected in contemporaneous emails and meeting notes.

The Employer maintained that the matters identified were not isolated incidents but formed part of its overall assessment of the Worker’s performance and suitability during probation. It submitted that, despite feedback and support, sufficient improvement was not observed and management ultimately concluded that the Worker was not suited to the Deputy General Manager role at the XXX Hotel.

The Employer further submitted that it considered the Worker suitable for a management role within its smaller sister property, the YYY Hotel, and that an alternative position was discussed with him at the time of the termination of his employment. It maintained that the Worker declined that opportunity. The Employer denied that the decision to terminate the Worker’s employment had been predetermined and submitted that the subsequent appointment of a replacement reflected operational necessity rather than evidence that a decision had been made in advance.

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

I accept that the procedure followed by the Employer fell short of what would ordinarily be expected where concerns exist regarding an employee’s performance. The Worker was not afforded a formal probation review, was not invited to a meeting in advance of the decision to terminate his employment and was not afforded an appeal. These are matters which weigh in the Worker’s favour.

However, I am also satisfied that this dispute must be viewed in the context of the Worker’s very short service and his probationary status. The evidence before me does not support the Worker’s contention that concerns regarding his performance were first raised on 18 March 2025. I am satisfied that management had formed concerns regarding his performance and suitability for the role during the course of his probationary period and that those concerns related to a range of operational and managerial issues rather than the two matters specifically identified during the termination meeting.

Having considered the oral evidence of the parties and the contemporaneous documentation produced by the Employer, I am satisfied that the Employer genuinely concluded that the Worker was not suited to the Deputy General Manager role within the XXX Hotel. I accept the Employer's evidence that management considered the Worker better suited to a management role within its smaller sister property than to the Deputy General Manager role at the XXX Hotel. While there is a dispute regarding the precise nature of the discussions concerning that role, I am satisfied that the possibility of alternative employment within the group was genuinely explored.

The Worker clearly disagreed with management’s assessment of his performance and suitability. While I have carefully considered the merits of the parties' respective positions, I am satisfied on the evidence before me that the Employer's concerns were genuinely held and pre-dated the decision to terminate the Worker’s employment. Having regard to all of the circumstances, I am satisfied that the Employer’s decision arose from a genuine assessment of suitability during probation rather than from arbitrary or capricious conduct.

I conclude that the Worker brought his complaint in good faith and genuinely believed that he had been treated unfairly. However, having regard to all of the circumstances, including the procedural shortcomings identified above, I am not persuaded that there is a basis upon which I should recommend in favour of his claim.