Employee had been unfairly dismissed without notice, representation, reasons, or appeal.

The Complainant submitted that she had been dismissed suddenly and without fair procedure in February 2025. She had commenced employment in October 2024 as a part-time graphic designer under a one-year contract and worked three days per week. She stated that she had performed her duties competently, producing design materials and campaigns for the clinic’s medical, aesthetic, and dental services. After a period of sick leave, she contacted the Respondent to confirm that she had recovered and was fit to return to work. She then discovered that she had not been placed on the rota. She was invited to a video meeting without being told that termination was being considered and was dismissed with immediate effect during that meeting. She believed the dismissal was connected to her refusal to move from part-time to full-time work and complained that she was not offered any appeal.

The Respondent denied that the Complainant had been unfairly dismissed or unfairly treated. It stated that the clinic provided medical, dental, aesthetic and Chinese herb treatments and that the Complainant’s performance had been unsatisfactory. The Director maintained that the principal difficulty concerned her allegedly inadequate English and asserted that, after four months, she still had a poor understanding of the business. He further stated that her design work did not promote the company effectively and that her probation had previously been extended because she was insufficiently productive. The Respondent denied that she had been required to work during breaks and stated that all staff worked under pressure in the clinic environment. It accepted that no internal complaint had been made by the Complainant before dismissal. The Respondent also stated that it had a HR Manager, used an external HR provider for contracts, and paid the Complainant two weeks’ notice on termination.

The Adjudicator found that the Complainant had effectively been ambushed into a meeting in February 2025 without advance notice that dismissal was contemplated, without the option of representation, and without evidence or detail of the reasons for termination. The meeting had been presented as a return-to-work meeting but resulted in immediate dismissal. The Adjudicator found the Respondent’s position contradictory and unconvincing: one explanation referred to financial difficulty, while another focused-on performance and inappropriate comments about preferring local or European employees living nearby. The Respondent had no disciplinary procedure in place at the time but was still required to comply with the principles of fairness and natural justice set out in S.I. 146/2000. The Adjudicator concluded that the dismissal was far removed from those standards, wholly lacking in fair procedure, and recommended payment of €5,000 in full and final settlement.

Employers should:

• Ensure that even short-service, probationary or fixed-term employees are treated fairly before termination. A return-to-work meeting should not be used as a disguised dismissal meeting. If termination is under consideration, the employee should be told in advance, given the reasons, afforded a right to respond, and allowed representation where appropriate.    
  
  
• Ensure that disciplinary and performance procedures are in place from the outset of employment. Even where no formal handbook exists, S.I. 146/2000 provides a basic procedural framework requiring fairness, clarity of allegations, an opportunity to respond, impartial decision-making and an appeal mechanism. Absence of a written procedure will not excuse procedural unfairness.  
  
  
• Be careful to give consistent, objective and lawful reasons for dismissal. Explanations based on financial difficulty, performance, language ability or preferences for “local” staff can create serious evidential and discrimination risks if not properly documented and justified. Decisions should be based on clear business grounds, supported by records, and communicated in a measured and defensible manner.
  

The full case can be found here.