Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

General Operative

Food Production Facility

Representatives

Self-Represented

Mr. Kevin Feighery, IBEC

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

IR - SC - 00003990

21/03/2025

On 21st March 2025, the Worker referred the present dispute to the Commission. Herein, he alleged that his employer unfairly dismissed him in contravention of fair process. By response, the Employer stated that the Worker was dismissed whilst his employment was subject to a probationary period, and that they were entitled to dismiss him without establishing misconduct as required by the Unfair Dismissals Acts.

Following the Employer’s failure to object to the referral of this dispute within the statutory timeframe, the matter proceeded to hearing. Said hearing was convened for, and finalised on, 19th September 2025. This hearing was conducted by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. No technical issues were experienced during the hearing.

Both parties issued submissions in advance of the hearing. Said submissions were expanded upon and contested in the course of the hearing.

No issues as to my jurisdiction to hear the disputes were raised at any stage of the proceedings.

The Worker submitted that he was a long-standing employee of the Employer, having originally commenced his employment on 3rd August 2021. The Worker accepted that on 13th December 2024, he terminated his employment by way of resignation, in order to pursue an alternative role with a different company. After a few days in this new position, the Worker stated that he regretted his decision and requested that the Employer allow him to return to his previous role. The Employer agreed to re-employ the Complainant, with his employment recommencing on 19th December 2024. The Worker acknowledged that he signed a new contract of employment on that date which specified a commencement date of 19th December 2024 and stipulated that he would be subject to a probationary period for six months thereafter.

On 31st January 2025, the Worker informed his line manager that he was unable to work in a particular section of the premises, as he had received no training for that area and had never previously worked there. He further asserted that the section in question was not in a fit state for work at that time. The Worker then returned to his standard duties for the remainder of the shift. Later that morning, the Worker’s line manager instructed him to report to the Human Resources department at the conclusion of his shift. Upon doing so, the Worker was informed that it was his final day of employment and that he was being dismissed. When the Worker enquired as to the reasons for his dismissal, he was informed it was due to his failure to follow an instruction earlier that day. The Worker stated that he was afforded no opportunity to explain his position or speak in his own defence.

The Worker subsequently appealed this decision in accordance with the Employer’s internal procedures, with an appeal meeting being convened for 6th March 2025. Although the Worker detailed his position during this meeting, the Employer declined to reconsider the dismissal and failed to provide any evidence regarding the facts leading to the termination.

Having regard to the foregoing, the Worker submitted that his dismissal was both procedurally and substantively unfair. While acknowledging he was within a probationary period, he argued that his previous tenure as a long-standing employee should have been a mitigating factor. He further maintained that he was never placed on formal notice of the allegations, never received statements from the parties involved, and was denied the opportunity to defend himself. In these circumstances, the Worker asserted that his dismissal was unfair.

By response, the Employer accepted the Worker’s account regarding his former tenure with the organisation and his re-commencement in December 2024. The Employer further agreed that the Worker was subject to a probationary period upon the commencement of this new period of employment. In this regard, the Employer stated that they became aware that the Worker refused to follow a reasonable management instruction on 31st January 2025. Furthermore, and in light of the fact that the Worker had commenced a new appointment governed by probationary terms, the Employer elected to terminate the Complainant’s employment in accordance with those provisions.

The Employer asserted that the Worker was afforded an opportunity to present his case by way of an appeal meeting of 6th March 2025. However, following a full consideration of the relevant factors, the Employer concluded that the termination of employment should be upheld.

By submission, the Employer stated that the Worker’s employment was subject to a specific probationary clause, and that they were therefore entitled to terminate the contract in accordance with the same.

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

In the present case, the Worker stated that his employment was terminated without recourse to proper procedures or without any form of investigation into the alleged misconduct taking place. By way of response, the Employer asserted that the Worker’s employment was subject to a probationary period at the material time and that they were entitled to terminate the contract of employment based upon the allegations of his line manager.

In this regard, it is noted that an unusual aspect of this case is that the Worker, while accepting he was subject to a probationary period, had a prior term of employment spanning several years. In this regard, it is apparent that the Employer was well aware of the Complainant’s extensive work history, his proven ability to perform the role as required and his temperament. Consequently, the fact that the Worker allegedly engaged what can only be described as the most minor of misconduct, should not have resulted in the termination of the contract of employment. It is further noted that the Worker was informed of his summary dismissal on the day in question without any formal process of any description being adopted by the Employer. While the Employer did invite the Worker to an appeal meeting on 6th March 2025, a review of the minutes confirms that the Employer neglected to properly investigate the surrounding circumstances leading to the dismissal. Furthermore, in circumstances whereby no investigation occurred in relation to the surrounding circumstances, it follows that the Worker was not permitted at any stage to defend himself against the allegations, which were apparently accepted as fact on face value.

Having regard to the accumulation of the foregoing points, I find that the dismissal of the Worker was unfair, and I duly recommend in his favour.

Dismissal, Probation, New Employment, Break in Service