Dismissal during probation was found to be procedurally unfair due to lack of clear reasons, absence of documented performance concerns, and failure to follow fair procedures.

The Complainant lodged a dispute under the Industrial Relations Act 1969, as she did not have the required one year’s service to bring a claim under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977. The case concerned her dismissal from a deli business. They stated that in November 2024, she was called to a meeting with the Director and Deli Manager and informed that her employment was being terminated. She said the meeting was vague and she needed clarification on what was being discussed. After leaving employment that day, she emailed seeking a reason for her dismissal but only received a brief response, which offered no real clarity. They submitted that she had received only positive feedback during her employment and had signed her contract just days before dismissal.

The Respondent stated that the Complainant had received regular informal, on-the-job feedback, but acknowledged that no formal probationary reviews had taken place. The Director said concerns had been raised about her customer service. It was accepted that during the termination meeting that they asked for clarification and appeared surprised by the decision to end her employment. The Respondent relied on the probationary period clause in the employment contract as justification for the dismissal. The Director also stressed that, given the time and cost involved in recruitment and training, they would not dismiss an employee without good reason.

The Adjudicating Officer found that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed. The Respondent failed to provide a clear reason for her dismissal at the meeting or in the follow-up email. It was evident that the Complainant was surprised and confused during the dismissal meeting and sought clarification, which she did not receive. There was no documentary evidence of warnings, performance reviews, or formal probationary assessments. The Adjudicating Officer noted that, while informal feedback is common, where dismissal for performance is contemplated, they must be clearly informed of concerns and given a chance to respond. Citing Labour Court Recommendation LCR22710, the Officer emphasised that even probationary employees are entitled to basic fair procedures before dismissal. Given the lack of procedural fairness and the sudden nature of the termination but considering that they had secured alternative employment quickly, the WRC recommended compensation of €1,500.

Employers should:

• Ensure that all dismissals, even during probation, comply with the basic principles of fair procedure. This includes providing clear reasons for termination and ensuring that employees understand the purpose and content of any meeting that may lead to dismissal.  
   
  
• Conduct regular probationary reviews, documenting any concerns raised about performance or conduct. If issues arise, employees should be given clear, written feedback and an opportunity to address and improve on the concerns raised.
   
  
• Note, even if a probation clause exists, sudden and unexplained terminations without proper process can result in reputational damage and awards against the employer, as seen in this case.

The full case can be found here.