The Complainant’s employment with the Respondent commenced in June 2015. On the 28th June 2016, the Complainant was offered a permanent role. It was submitted that while the permanent role referred to a probationary period, the Complainant had already completed probation through his temporary role.  The Complainant’s work involved looking after the health care needs of service users who were in the full time care of the Respondent.

In 2014,  before the Complainant had commenced employment with the Respondent he stole ex-demo models from his previous employer. This occurred at a time that there were significant issues going on in the Complainant’s personal life. In November 2016, the Complainant appeared in Court in respect of allegations of theft. The Complainant disclosed this to the Respondent who provided him with time off for the court hearing. Following the court hearing, the Complainant advised his manager that his case had been adjourned for one year and that he had to engage and comply with probationary services.

In December 2016, the Complainant was advised that his probation was extended to the end of November 2017.  The Respondent advised the Complainant that they recognised that there were extenuating personal circumstances at the time of the offences but that he should have been forthcoming to his Manager at the start of his employment.  The complainant was advised to liaise with the respondent on a weekly/fortnightly basis on his well-being which proved difficult as the Complainant had to attend different counsellors. As a result of stress incurred with the impending court case, the Complainant went into a local store and walked out without paying for €12.00 of groceries.  He was prosecuted for this, however the court took a compassionate approach and dismissed the charges unconditionally.

The Complainant submitted that the attempt to extend the probationary period was unlawful and a breach of contract.  The Respondent contended that the Complainant was on probation and that owing to a breach of trust they were left with no alternative but to determine that the Complainant had failed to pass his probation and that his employment should be terminated.

The Adjudication Officer highlighted that the exact reason for the termination of the Complainant’s employment was somewhat unclear. Furthermore, the Respondent failed to give due consideration to alternatives to dismissal and there was also no opportunity given to the Complainant to appeal the Respondent’s decision.  Accordingly, the Respondent was ordered to pay the Complainant compensation in the amount of €7,850.
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2020/may/adj-00015052.html