A tribunal has urged a company to pay \u20ac50,000 in compensation to a woman who moved to Ireland to take up a senior job at the firm, only to be sacked six months later after she complained about the behaviour of her manager.<\/p>\n
The employee told the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) that she thought her concerns would be addressed when she was asked to put them in writing and attend a meeting.<\/p>\n
Instead, the manager she complained about dialled in with human resources, and she was told her job was being immediately terminated, the worker told the commission.<\/p>\n
There had been \u201cno prior warning\u201d that the company had taken any issue with her conduct or performance, she said.<\/p>\n
An adjudicator called it \u201ca serious departure from the standards expected of an employer\u201d in an anonymised decision document making the non-binding recommendation under the Industrial Relations Act 1969 for the payment of the compensation.<\/p>\n
The company had written to the tribunal through its solicitors objecting to a hearing into the industrial dispute proceeding, and did not attend, the WRC noted.<\/p>\n
The worker told adjudicator Christina Ryan she had \u201crelocated internationally\u201d to take up the offer of a \u201csenior role\u201d at the unidentified Irish company, and started work there on 6 February 2023.<\/p>\n
There was no formal probation review, performance meetings, or any structured feedback \u2013 as the person who was meant to take charge of that process was \u201cunavailable\u201d due to personal circumstances.<\/p>\n
She said she believed her performance had been strong and that she was exceeding expectations and that bosses had acknowledged the quality of her work in writing.<\/p>\n
On 23 August, the employee said she went to the manager who hired her for the job and, after raising concerns about the conduct of her line manager, was asked to give examples in writing.<\/p>\n
Two days later she was called to a meeting, attending in the belief that what she had raised would be \u201cevaluated\u201d and that her concerns would be discussed and resolved.<\/p>\n
Both the manager she had complained to and the manager she complained about joined the videoconference \u2013 along with a representative from the company\u2019s human resources department.<\/p>\n
She said she was then told her job was being \u201cterminated with immediate effect\u201d.<\/p>\n
The employee said she had no advance notice that this was the purpose of the meeting and had \u201cno prior warning\u201d that either her performance on the job or her conduct were \u201cunsatisfactory\u201d.<\/p>\n
The worker said she had trouble finding new work despite \u201csustained efforts\u201d and believed that her short tenure with the company had damaged her employability.<\/p>\n
The adjudicator, Ryan, noted that the claimant had no recourse to the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 when she was let go because she did not have a full year\u2019s service \u2013 but said this did not \u201cnegate\u201d her right to fair procedures.<\/p>\n
Ryan said the worker was \u201cclear and consistent\u201d and she accepted her \u201cuncontested\u201d account of the dismissal.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe employer failed entirely to adhere to the requirements of fair procedures. There was a complete absence of any process,\u201d Ryan wrote.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe manner in which the dismissal was effected, in circumstances where the worker reasonably believed she was attending a meeting to discuss concerns she had raised, compounded that failure,\u201d Ryan wrote.<\/p>\n
\u201cI am satisfied that the manner of her dismissal has had a significant adverse impact on her professional standing and employability,\u201d the adjudicator added.<\/p>\n
She recommended the payment of \u20ac50,000 in compensation for the dismissal.<\/p>\n
This figure, Ryan wrote, reflected the employer\u2019s conduct, the \u201cabrupt and unanticipated\u201d dismissal, the employee\u2019s seniority, and the fact that the worker had been required to relocate internationally to take up the job.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"A tribunal has urged a company to pay \u20ac50,000 in compensation to a woman who moved to Ireland…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":423250,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[72,61,60,1962,6465],"class_list":["post-460629","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-business","tag-business","tag-ie","tag-ireland","tag-work","tag-workplace-relations-commission"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/460629","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=460629"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/460629\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/423250"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=460629"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=460629"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=460629"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}