Background:

The Complainant was a probationary employee for the Respondent. The Complainant alleged that there had been a number of upsetting conflicts and incidents during his employment with the Respondent. One instance was when the Complainant was told he was not entitled to a personal cabinet as he was on probation, and the Respondent told the Complainant to refrain from bringing the matter up again. The Complainant was also found to have been making mistakes in his day-to-day work that were of concern to the Respondent, which the Complainant alleged was due to nervousness and anxiety resulting from the behaviour of his colleagues. The behaviour which the Complainant identified as causing him distress included an incident where an orange was almost thrown at him by a colleague, and one where a colleague called the Complainant a “mediocre salesman.” These events caused significant distress to the Complainant in part due to his self-identified Asperger’s syndrome, which the Complainant said caused him to take statements very literally.

The Respondent alleged the Complainant regularly provided incorrect information to customers. It said that due to the Complainant’s status as a probationary employee, they were free to dismiss the Complainant for poor performance.

Outcome:

The Adjudication Officer of the WRC acknowledged that the purpose of a probationary period is to allow a “trial period” between an employee and an employer, without the obligation to apply the strict requirements of fair procedure and natural justice. However, the Adjudication Officer held this did not absolve an employer of any obligation to act in a fair way in a general sense, and “at a minimum to extend what might be regarded as simple normal courtesies to a person whose probation they intend to end.” He said that the use of phrases such as “not the right fit” was “lazy” by the Respondent will always be viewed suspiciously. Due to the failure to advise the Complainant of any risk to his employment and his summary dismissal without warning, the Adjudication Officer recommended an award of €2,500 in compensation to be paid by the Respondent to the Complainant.

Practical Guidance for Employers:

The phrase “not a good fit” is often used as a panacea by employers, particularly for probationary employees, in dismissal scenarios to avoid an allegation of employee misconduct which might trigger fair procedure requirements. However, Adjudication Officers, particularly in Industrial Relations cases, may expect employers to extend “simple normal courtesy” in a probationary dismissal, even if a strict legal obligation to provide reasons for such a dismissal does not arise.

The full case is here: https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2023/july/adj-00043542.html