Is pursuing unfair dismissal an option if working for employer less than 2 months?

Rainbow Spuds

Hi all.

Apologies if this is dealt with elsewhere, but I would really appreciate any recommendations/advice.

My other half was given 2.5 wks notice from his place of work today.

By the time he had worked through his notice, he will have worked 8 wks approx. with this company.

He was vaguely told at the meeting that he wasn't up to standard and this was the reason for notice, although specifics were not given. (TBF my b/f didn't ask for them... He was taken aback to say the least at this seeming bolt from the blue)

This reason seems unlikely/surprising... My b/f has worked full-time over the last 13 years with 2 companies in the same line of work, leaving each one only to broaden his skill set and improve on his take-home pay.

I work in the public sector and so am unfamiliar with how to look into the fairness/appropriateness of the dismissal.

He had only been working there since mid-May, which grim what I've read on citizens information may impede rights to pursue unfair dismissal. Do I go straight to a solicitor for advice or is there someone/some group I can consult with first?

Any help/advice hugely appreciated.
Thanks in advance!

Stheno

No it's not an option it's a year a least you need to be employed.

I've had colleagues with 15 plus years experience not make it through probation.

He just may not have been a good fit for the company

Rainbow Spuds

I don't think it was outlined that there was a probation period as such, hence the shock.

Thanks though for your reply!

splinter65

Rainbow Spuds wrote: »

Hi all.

Apologies if this is dealt with elsewhere, but I would really appreciate any recommendations/advice.

My other half was given 2.5 wks notice from his place of work today.

By the time he had worked through his notice, he will have worked 8 wks approx. with this company.

He was vaguely told at the meeting that he wasn't up to standard and this was the reason for notice, although specifics were not given. (TBF my b/f didn't ask for them... He was taken aback to say the least at this seeming bolt from the blue)

This reason seems unlikely/surprising... My b/f has worked full-time over the last 13 years with 2 companies in the same line of work, leaving each one only to broaden his skill set and improve on his take-home pay.

I work in the public sector and so am unfamiliar with how to look into the fairness/appropriateness of the dismissal.

He had only been working there since mid-May, which grim what I've read on citizens information may impede rights to pursue unfair dismissal. Do I go straight to a solicitor for advice or is there someone/some group I can consult with first?

Any help/advice hugely appreciated.
Thanks in advance!

As already stated, although he can’t take a case to WRC I’m nonetheless interested in hearing how you would have said his termination was unfair?

gwalk

He was told he is not up to standard..

That seems like a valid reason for dismissal

closifer

Generally even if during a probation period an employee should be given warning that there performance isn't up to scratch and given a chance to improve. There should have been documented conversations and performance reviews

knipex

Except for 4 specifically defined reasons unless you have to be in employment for 12 months you have no right to unfair dismissal. Official probationary period or not (and I would be shocked if there wasn't one in the contract)

its outlined here in the Citizen Information

They were probably advised (by their solicitor or HR) not to give any reason beyond a generic "its not working out".

You could potentially bring a civil case for breach of contract but my advice would be to walk away.

Rainbow Spuds

Rainbow Spuds wrote: »

This reason seems unlikely/surprising... My b/f has worked full-time over the last 13 years with 2 companies in the same line of work, leaving each one only to broaden his skill set and improve on his take-home pay.

Most of us in the Private Sector do this, but each move from a successful role brings risks when moving.



You are only hearing one side of the story (his perception versus reality - although they could be broadly the same obviously).


Is it possible he could get his old job back?

Dawido

TBH that post of yours reeks of entitlement... Cop on...

Dawido

Dawido wrote: »

TBH that post of yours reeks of entitlement... Cop on...

What are you on about? The OP's partner was let go and they are wondering if they have any avenues open to them re his being let go.



Unfortunately in this case it doesn't appear to be, but if we all knew the answers there'd be no point to the forum.

Mrs OBumble

closifer wrote: »

Generally even if during a probation period an employee should be given warning that there performance isn't up to scratch and given a chance to improve. There should have been documented conversations and performance reviews

That is good practice, but it's not a legal requirement AFAIK.

_Brian

I would always have said same as many posters above that he hasn’t enough service, that’s what legislation dictates.

However in recent times there have been a number of successful cases with people as low as 3 months service winning cases. From memory the judgment was based on no due process as in no warning or opportunity for the employee to improve before being let go.

I’m not saying do it, but definitely recent judgments seem not to be sticking to the details on legislation and more of a move to due process and fairness.

splinter65

_Brian wrote: »

I would always have said same as many posters above that he hasn’t enough service, that’s what legislation dictates.

However in recent times there have been a number of successful cases with people as low as 3 months service winning cases. From memory the judgment was based on no due process as in no warning or opportunity for the employee to improve before being let go.

I’m not saying do it, but definitely recent judgments seem not to be sticking to the details on legislation and more of a move to due process and fairness.

Can you post a link to an article about someone with as little as 3 months service winning an unfair dismissal case, as I’d love to read it.

is_that_so

Dawido wrote: »

TBH that post of yours reeks of entitlement... Cop on...

Most people would have gone with someone who's upset and confused but you go with whatever makes your world rock.

Dav010

splinter65 wrote: »

Can you post a link to an article about someone with as little as 3 months service winning an unfair dismissal case, as I’d love to read it.

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/labour-court-awards-90k-to-former-manager-at-francis-brennans-luxury-park-hotel-37482822.html


11 weeks.

_Brian

splinter65 wrote: »

Can you post a link to an article about someone with as little as 3 months service winning an unfair dismissal case, as I’d love to read it.

I’m on a poor connection so I’ll just post one but she won an unfair dismissal case after just 34 days employment. I was shocked she won the case.

https://www.thejournal.ie/wrc-store-manager-sacking-4192833-Aug2018

is_that_so

_Brian wrote: »

I’m on a poor connection so I’ll just post one but she won an unfair dismissal case after just 34 days employment. I was shocked she won the case.

https://www.thejournal.ie/wrc-store-manager-sacking-4192833-Aug2018/

FYP! Can see why in that case. That said what is the point of legislation if the WRC are just ignoring it?

_Brian

Legislation is supposed to give a set of rules that people follow.

If we start to see decisions disregarding legislation then it will make HR issues at work a total mine field.

Jupiter Mulligan

Dav010 wrote: »

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/labour-court-awards-90k-to-former-manager-at-francis-brennans-luxury-park-hotel-37482822.html


11 weeks.

"The recommendation - which was published on the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) website - is not binding on the hotel."

Wishful thinking.

Jupiter Mulligan

_Brian wrote: »

I’m on a poor connection so I’ll just post one but she won an unfair dismissal case after just 34 days employment. I was shocked she won the case.

Do a google for the WRC sugar daddy (Roger McGrath) involved and you'll immediately notice his philanthropic tendencies!

splinter65

Dav010 wrote: »

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/labour-court-awards-90k-to-former-manager-at-francis-brennans-luxury-park-hotel-37482822.html


11 weeks.

That’s interesting. I think the fact that the employee had been headhunted and had relocated probably swung it for him.

Auguste Comte

I had to check that wasn't a waterfordwhispersnews.com story when I read the name of the solicitors.

Gore and Grimes

Jupiter Mulligan

Auguste Comte wrote: »

I had to check that wasn't a waterfordwhispersnews.com story when I read the name of the solicitors.

Gore and Grimes

An interesting firm of solicitors. Acted for Charlie Haughey and for some members of his golden circle for many years. Know where some of the bodies are buried.

Rainbow Spuds

Many thanks for all constructive replies.

To clarify... No sense of entitlement here! Just trying to source facts/information to broaden my understanding of the situation, and looking for the best way to do this.

Also, without wanting to sound tardy, I'm not here to 'defend' against/react to any suppositions that a small few ppl seem to have made about the dismissal. I'm just trying to get a sense if due process and fairness was applied by the employer...I don't think that's unreasonable.

From what has been said/what's available on citizens information, the relatively short period for which he was working for them is one of the biggest problems in terms of applying existing rules/legislation to his dismissal. (Observation/attempted understanding... Not entitlement!)

Tomorrow is a new day... Have a good one folks and thanks again!

skallywag

closifer wrote: »

Generally even if during a probation period an employee should be given warning that there performance isn't up to scratch and given a chance to improve. There should have been documented conversations and performance reviews

That is not correct in the vast majority of cases, you can normally be fired at the drop of the hat during probation without any explanation required other than 'you have not passed the probating period'. That's the whole reason for having a probation period, it gives both the employer and employee an easy out if it becomes obvious that a mistake has been made.

That said any decent employer will of course give a hint in advance etc. but there is no requirement to do so.

By the way OP, you mention that you do not think that a probation period was ever mentioned? Is no language concerning this present in the employment contract? It is normally called out very clearly.

_Brian

skallywag wrote: »

That is not correct in the vast majority of cases, you can normally be fired at the drop of the hat during probation without any explanation required other than 'you have not passed the probating period'. That's the whole reason for having a probation period, it gives both the employer and employee an easy out if it becomes obvious that a mistake has been made.

That said any decent employer will of course give a hint in advance etc. but there is no requirement to do so.

By the way OP, you mention that you do not think that a probation period was ever mentioned? Is no language concerning this present in the employment contract? It is normally called out very clearly.

Like I said, recent judgments would point to a change in how this is being applied. I personally now would issue a warning in advance.

rock22

_Brian wrote: »

Like I said, recent judgments would point to a change in how this is being applied. I personally now would issue a warning in advance.

Not recent, discretion has been applied to this limit for years. There is probably some guidelines around it ( which I have never seen).

ludalyni

_Brian wrote: »

I’m on a poor connection so I’ll just post one but she won an unfair dismissal case after just 34 days employment. I was shocked she won the case.

https://www.thejournal.ie/wrc-store-manager-sacking-4192833-Aug2018

That case was brought under the industrial relations legislation, not the unfair dismissals legislation - https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2018/august/adj-00013440.html

The adjudicator can only make recommendations in such cases, which the employer is totally free to ignore, so it's a pretty toothless option for the OP's partner.

OP, as others have said, it's not possible to bring an unfair dismissal case where the outcome would be binding (ie the employer would have to pay up if you were successful in your claim) before the employee has 1 year's service, except in some very limited circumstances which don't appear to apply here.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Jupiter Mulligan wrote: »

An interesting firm of solicitors. Acted for Charlie Haughey and for some members of his golden circle for many years. Know where some of the bodies are buried.

The lawyers know where people are buried? If that's not a joke, it's a serious accusation :eek:

ludalyni

rock22 wrote: »

Not recent, discretion has been applied to this limit for years. There is probably some guidelines around it ( which I have never seen).

WRC adjudicators don't have discretion to set aside the 1 year service requirement to bring an unfair dismissal case under unfair dismissal legislation. There are some limited circumstances where a person with less than a year's service can bring a case under the unfair dismissal legislation but these exceptions are clearly set out in the legislation.

Generally speaking, where an employee has less a year's service, they may bring a case under the industrial relations legislation but as I said above, the adjudicator only has the power to make recommendations in such cases, not binding decisions.

Typically public bodies and companies that recognise trade unions will accept WRC recommendations (because it would be an IR disaster if they didn't) but the majority of the rest don't.

The distinction between decisions and recommendations isn't generally reported in the papers, presumably because it wouldn't generate as many clicks and outrage.