A recent adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission ruled in favour of the employee. The case was in relation to a dismissal that took place after the employee’s probation period, but while the employee still had less than 12 months service. It is important to note the case was taken under the Industrial Relations Act and therefore the judgement is only a recommendation and not a binding decision.

Summary of the Employee’s Submission to the WRC:

The complainant was employed by the respondent from 3 July until 2 February 2024 and brought a complaint before the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. She contended that no concerns about her performance were raised before the end of her probationary period. Furthermore, she argued that there was no formal procedure or opportunity provided to her to address any performance-related issues before her dismissal. She claimed that her termination was abrupt and justified by the employer simply stating that “things weren’t working out.”

Summary of the Employer’s Submission to the WRC:

The employer maintained that the dismissal was fair, asserting that the employee did not meet the required standards of performance. They explained that although performance concerns had arisen during the probation period, they chose not to intervene immediately, instead allowing the employee time to improve. The employer further argued that implementing a formal process prior to termination would have been misleading, as the decision to end the employment would have remained unchanged.

Summary of Adjudication:

The Adjudication Officer determined that the dismissal was unjust, as fundamental principles of fair procedure had not been observed by the employer. Specifically, the company:

• Did not notify the employee that there were concerns regarding her performance
• Failed to give the employee adequate time to respond to or improve upon the identified performance issues
• Provided insufficient notice of the meeting at which her termination was discussed
• Did not afford the employee the opportunity to have representation present during the dismissal meeting
• The adjudicator reiterated that each party must be given a fair chance to present their side before any decision is reached; failing to do so results in a one sided and procedurally unfair outcome.

As the dismissal was deemed unfair it was recommended that the complainant receive €10,000.00 in compensation.

Key Takeaways:

• As the case was taken under the Industrial Relations Act, the payment of €10,000 is only a recommendation and not a binding decision, so the Company are not legally obligated to pay this. However, it highlights the importance of following fair procedures at any point in an employee’s tenure.
• Employees must be given an opportunity to respond to any allegations raised against them.
• Employers must highlight any performance issues and give the employee appropriate time to respond or make improvements.
• On the spot dismissals are never fair under any circumstance.