Dismissal found to lawful mid-probation.

The Complainant commenced employment in January 2025 at an hourly rate of €16, and her employment ended in March 2025 (eight weeks later) when she did not pass her probation. She submitted that she had requested more predictable and secure working conditions but did not receive a reasoned written reply within one month. She stated that she had been transparent from the outset that she operated her own business and was only available on specific days and times, which the Respondent accepted at recruitment stage. She was hired to work two weekends per month and was later offered additional evening work, which she welcomed. However, she contended that the Respondent failed to honour the agreed flexibility and refused to confirm requested time off, even when sought well in advance. She submitted that onboarding was inadequate, job duties were unclear, and she received limited support when dealing with challenging residents. She stated that she developed anxiety following the termination of her employment and the loss of income.

The Respondent submitted that the Complainant was hired as a part-time weekend and evening supervisor, subject to a six-month probationary period. This was to work in an emergency accommodation centre for vulnerable international protection applicants. She worked approximately 24 to 30 hours per week at a rate of €16 per hour. The Respondent stated that the Complainant was fully informed of the nature of the role and signed her terms of employment and code of standards. She attended mandatory conflict resolution training mid-February. During probation, management identified several concerns regarding her performance, including acting outside her authority, making unauthorised decisions, and failing to apply conflict resolution techniques. A serious incident occurred involving a resident, following which the Complainant issued an unauthorised written warning. Management considered her behaviour inappropriate and concluded that she was not a suitable fit for the role. Her employment was terminated due to failure to pass probation, and no statutory entitlement to predictable working conditions arose.

The Adjudicating Officer considered that the sole complaint before the Workplace Relations Commission related to an alleged failure by the Respondent to provide a reasoned reply to a request for more predictable and secure working conditions. It was not in dispute that the Complainant commenced employment in January 2025 and that her employment ended in March 2025. The Adjudicator noted that legislation clearly required an employee to have at least six months’ continuous service and to have completed any probationary period before making such a request. The Complainant had less than two months’ service and had not completed probation. Accordingly, she did not meet the statutory threshold to invoke the protection relied upon. On that basis, the Adjudicator found that the complaint was not well founded and dismissed it in full.

Employers should:                

• Ensure that statutory eligibility criteria are clearly understood by both management and employees. While requests for predictable working conditions may arise early in employment, HR teams should be trained to identify whether an employee meets the service and probation requirements before engaging the formal statutory process. Clear written communication explaining why a request cannot be considered can help manage expectations and reduce disputes, even where no legal obligation arises. 
  
  
• Note that robust onboarding remains critical, particularly in sensitive environments such as emergency accommodation or care settings. Employers should provide clear job descriptions, defined lines of authority, and practical guidance on decision-making limits. Mandatory training, such as conflict resolution, should be documented and followed up where performance concerns emerge during probation. 
  
  
• Treat probationary periods as active performance management phases. Concerns should be raised promptly, documented, and discussed with employees before termination where possible. Even where dismissal is lawful, clear explanations for decisions can reduce the likelihood of complaints.

The full case can be found here.