A payroll officer dismissed during probation was found to have been unfairly terminated because the employer failed to follow fair procedures or provide any evidence of performance management.

The Complainant stated that she had been employed as a Payroll and Accounts Officer from July 2024 and was dismissed in December 2024, still during her probationary period. She claimed she had performed her duties diligently, introducing a new payroll system and managing her workload efficiently. She described her line manager as intolerant and verbally harsh, often shouting at her and criticising her unnecessarily. The Complainant said this behaviour caused her significant distress and that she believed it was motivated, at least in part, by bias related to her Asian ethnicity. She emphasised that she had not been warned of any performance issues, nor given support or fair feedback. After her dismissal, she lodged a written grievance with the business owner but received no meaningful response.

The Respondent submitted a written response but did not attend the WRC hearing. The company denied that the Complainant’s dismissal was unfair and asserted that it arose from performance concerns identified during her probation. It stated that the Complainant failed to meet required standards and demonstrated insufficient ability to work independently within the account's environment. The Respondent maintained that the company had reviewed her performance and, following internal discussions, concluded she was unsuitable for permanent employment. The Respondent further claimed that probationary reviews had taken place and that feedback had been given. However, it provided no documentary evidence of these reviews. It contended that the decision to terminate employment complied with the contractual probation clause and denied any allegation of bullying, bias, or discriminatory conduct.

The Adjudicating Officer found that the Complainant’s dismissal had been unfair. The Respondent failed to provide evidence of formal probation reviews, documented feedback, or any notice that the Complainant’s job was at risk. The Adjudicator accepted the Complainant’s unchallenged evidence that she performed her duties competently and that her line manager displayed hostility and impatience toward her. The Respondent’s submission was considered an attempt to justify a flawed decision made without transparency or fair process. The Adjudicator also found that the Complainant’s grievance, lodged before her employment ended, had not been investigated properly. It was held that the Complainant’s dismissal caused her considerable distress but that she had acted responsibly by securing alternative work shortly afterward. The Adjudicator recommended that the Respondent pay €4,000 compensation and review its probation management and record-keeping procedures to ensure fair, transparent, and evidence-based employment practices in the future.

Employers should:                

• Ensure that probationary processes are fair, transparent, and properly documented. During probation, performance expectations should be clearly outlined from the outset, with regular review meetings and written feedback provided. Where issues arise, employees should be given clear notice, specific examples of concerns, and an opportunity to improve before any termination is considered.  
  
• Ensure that grievance procedures remain accessible to all employees, including those on probation. Any complaint of bullying, discrimination, or mistreatment must be investigated promptly and impartially.  
  
• Ensure managers receive training in communication and workplace conduct. Hostility or disrespect can quickly escalate into complaints. Note, a culture of professionalism and procedural fairness not only reduces legal exposure but also enhances morale, trust, and overall productivity.

 
The full case can be found here.