LCR23238

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

 Referral under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969

BACKGROUND:

The Worker referred this case to the Labour Court on 15 November 2025 in accordance with Section 20 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.

A Labour Court hearing took place on 10 March 2026.

RECOMMENDATION:

The Worker referred a complaint to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, and agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.

The Worker was employed by the company from 24 February 2025 until 21 August 2025 when he was informed that he had not passed his probation and was dismissed. The Worker contends that the dismissal and appeal processes were procedurally flawed and unfair as no HR representation was present at the dismissal meeting which would have ensured some basic procedural protection. As part of the appeal process the manager involved in his dismissal was afforded an opportunity to make oral submissions whilst the Worker was not afforded the same opportunity, creating a clear imbalance and bias. The note-taker at the appeal was related to a member of management. Finally, the Employer concluded the appeal on 10 October 2025, before the Worker had an opportunity to submit supporting documentation that he had requested as part of a Data Subject Access Request. The Worker submits that the termination of his employment was procedurally unfair and seeks that the Court make an award of compensation to reflect the loss, stress and detriment caused by the process.

The Employer submits that it dismissed the Worker because he failed the probationary process. The Worker was provided with a clear job description and relevant training for his role. The Worker was aware that his continued employment was contingent upon the successful completion of his probation. Two formal probationary meetings were held on 16 May 2025 and 18 August 2025, where specific performance issues were identified. The Worker was afforded every opportunity to improve. The Employer adhered fully to the principles of natural justice and fair procedures. The Worker was notified in writing that his employment was at risk due to consistent poor performance. He was afforded the right to representation and the right to be heard. The Worker was afforded the right to appeal the dismissal decision. The decision to dismiss was reasonable and proportionate and the process followed by the Employer was fair.

The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions made by both sides at the hearing.

In response to questions from the Court, the Worker said that he was fully aware of the probationary process and that his issue was not with the probationary process or the dismissal per se. His issue related to the fairness of the appeals process in circumstances where he was not granted a face-to-face appeal hearing and so was denied an opportunity to be fully heard. He also takes issue that material requested as part of a Data Subject Access Request was not provided to him in sufficient time to include in his appeal.

The Employer, for its part, denies that the dismissal or appeals process was procedurally unfair. It contends that the appeal is a desk-top process and all relevant documentation and meeting notes were provided to the Worker in advance of the dismissal process.

The Court has, on many occasions, emphasised the necessity for an employer to follow fair procedures when a worker is at risk of the loss of employment. In this case, based on the oral and written submissions made, the Court takes no issue with the processes followed by the employer which it in its view were substantially fair. On that basis, and having regard to the circumstances outlined, the Court cannot find in favour of the Worker’s complaint.

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Katie Connolly
TH	______________________
20th March 2026	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ms Therese Hickey, Court Secretary.