# Fired after 2 weeks



## shipibo (30 Aug 2006)

A Chairde,


A friend of mine left her job as she got a better opportunity with another employer.

She stated before she took job, that she had 2 weeks holidays booked within two weeks of her joining new job, this was not a problem.

On the thursday before her holidays, she was called by manager and told she would have to improve, even though she was still in a training phase. 


She went on her holidays, came back on monday, and was told by Manager it was not working out, and was told to go. 


Looked on OASIS and said she could contest this, was wondering if you had any experiences like this / advice ???


----------



## ClubMan (30 Aug 2006)

Except in limited circumstances (see here) employees do not benefit from the protections offered by the unfair dismissals legislation until they have at least 12 months service under their belt.


----------



## dontaskme (30 Aug 2006)

my recollection is that the first 6 months of employment is probation period and an employer can terminate the employment without having to give a reason in this time and there is no compensation.

If your friend has received holiday pay for two weeks then she has been paid for four weeks after working for two, which seems like a good return.


----------



## ClubMan (30 Aug 2006)

It used to be 6 months but it's 12 months nowadays.


----------



## Art (31 Aug 2006)

The information above is incorrect. While she is not covered by the unfair dismissals act 1990 she is covered by the Industrial relations act 1969 and can therefore take a case under this legislation. She should refer the case into the LRC - it would be heard by a Rights Commissioner in the first instance and thereafter by the labour court. Typically, dismissed employees with less than 1 years service get about four weeks pay. 
I refer you to the labour court website www.labourcourt.ie (case ref: *CD/06/135 APPEAL DECISION NO. 0644 *(R-036653-MA-05/TB) where you will see that an employee with only 1 weeks service was found to be unfairly dismissed and won an award of just over €1,300. However I have heard of the odd case where they have got more than this...
​


----------



## ClubMan (31 Aug 2006)

Art said:


> The information above is incorrect.


Can you point to authoritative information stating that the _Unfair Dismissals Act_ applies to employees with less than 12 months service other than in restricted circumstances so please?


----------



## MugsGame (31 Aug 2006)

Art is right -- they are talking about a different act. This has come up before.


----------



## ClubMan (31 Aug 2006)

That does not make the information previously posted incorrect. Incomplete maybe.


----------



## Art (31 Aug 2006)

crumdub12 said:


> Looked on OASIS and said she could contest this, was wondering if you had any experiences like this / advice ???


 
This is the question posed by the OP. There was not mention here of the Unfair Dismissals Act. He simply asked if she could contest the dismissal.

Except in limited circumstances (see here) employees do not benefit from the protections offered by the unfair dismissals legislation until they have at least 12 months service under their belt

Therefore while the information above is not incorrect, it is both incomplete and misleading in that it failed to address the OPs question comprehensively. It is like asking if the weather outside is sunny and being told that it is not raining.


----------



## Magoo (31 Aug 2006)

crumdub12 said:


> Looked on OASIS and said she could contest this, was wondering if you had any experiences like this / advice ???


 
I think the advice should be that on the basis of the circumstances provided and the governing legislation, the individual has no legal recourse and has no option therfore but to seek alternative employment. 

While the extract of the LC case quoted suggests that an exception was made in this instance, it would be necessary to know the exact basis for the exeception in order to determine whether it presents an option for the person who lost her job. Giventhe circumstance described, however, I think it's unlikely. 

IMHO the employer was within his/her rights to take the action he/she did and while I would have sympathy for the individual concernced there is no action open to her. She would be well advised, IMHO, to accept this scenario and move on hopefully to better things.


----------



## shipibo (31 Aug 2006)

Thanks for all the replies,


     She went to FLAC in Dun Laoghaire last night, they have an Industrial Relations Lawyer there, she was advised to leave this as there is no legislation to cover people in employment for such a short period.


                     Thanks again.


----------



## wiggzie (31 Aug 2006)

so clubman was correct


----------



## Art (31 Aug 2006)

No the industrial relations lawyer is incorrect. As I said before she should refer a case under the Industrial Relations Act 1969 and not under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 - 2001. I have given a link in a previous post of someone who won their case despite having less than 1 years service. There are numerous other cases on the labour court website (e.g. cd/05/1141, cd/01/510, cd/01/365) if you take the time to persuse the various cases submitted there. The earlier case I referred to was therefore clearly not an exception.


----------



## ClubMan (31 Aug 2006)

Art said:


> Therefore while the information above is not incorrect


Thanks for that clarification.


----------



## Magoo (4 Sep 2006)

Art said:


> As I said before she should refer a case under the Industrial Relations Act 1969 and not under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 - 2001. I have given a link in a previous post of someone who won their case despite having less than 1 years service.


 
I'd be genuinely interested to know which provision of the 1969 IR act the person could rely on for the purposes of claiming an unfair dismissals.  I've searched the Labour Court website and couldn't find the cases referred to.  It strikes me as odd that two pieces of Employment Law legislation could have contradicting provisions and, for me, the UD Act is very explicit about what is and isn't allowable.


----------



## Art (4 Sep 2006)

It is section 20 of the IR Act 1969. There is no mention of unfair dismissals only of a trade dispute. If you feel you have been unfairly dismissed, this is regarded by the Labour Court as a trade dispute which is why people with less than 1 years service take it under this piece of legislation.

To find the cases I referred to in earlier posts, go to www.labourcourt.ie. Then go into Labour Court recommendations. Then go down to the quick search facility at the bottom and type in the case references that I mentioned.


----------



## Superman (4 Sep 2006)

Magoo said:


> It strikes me as odd that two pieces of Employment Law legislation could have contradicting provisions and, for me, the UD Act is very explicit about what is and isn't allowable.



Happens all the time in other areas of the law (I'm thinking of Commercial Law in particular) - why should Employment Law be any different?


----------



## shipibo (4 Sep 2006)

A Chairde,


     I asked this question on this forum because I wanted to hear diverse points of view , and with all areas of law there is more grey areas , than black and white.


    Thanks for all the comments,they were most helpful and informative.


----------



## Art (1 Nov 2006)

Just an update here. The Labour Court last week awarded €30,000 to an employee dismissed at the end of his 3 month probationary period because proper procedures were not followed. The company involved was SQS formerly trading as Cresta Testing..


----------



## shipibo (1 Nov 2006)

http://www.labourcourt.ie/labour/la...80256a770034a2ab802571fd003d65ee?OpenDocument


----------



## greenfield (2 Nov 2006)

As I understand it, in the case cited by crumdub12, the Labour Court have "recommended" as a way to end the dispute that money is paid.   This is not an order and is in no way legally binding.   If the employer rejects the recommendation, which he can do, the only recourse for the ex-employee is that their union initiate industrial action on their behalf.


----------



## pat127 (2 Nov 2006)

dontaskme said:


> my recollection is that the first 6 months of employment is probation period
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## dontaskme (2 Nov 2006)

pat127 said:


> dontaskme said:
> 
> 
> > my recollection is that the first 6 months of employment is probation period
> ...


----------



## pat127 (2 Nov 2006)

Thanks for that.


----------



## shipibo (7 Nov 2006)

Greenfield,


    You are correct in relation to Labour Court having no real teeth .I.E Irish Ferries , they only recomend, so court is quite misleading.


     You raised an interesting point about refusal , and next steps, as from my experience in the private sector, if you asked someone to take industrial actions on an issue of principle (someones elses dismissal) you would be laughed at. IA will only get used when it affects most / all members in the pocket,conditions etc ..


    I will look into next course of action.


----------



## greenfield (7 Nov 2006)

This is why the IR lawyer advised that there was no recourse available - there is no way to sue as you need the 12 months service to pursue a case under unfair dismissals legislation (unless you are covered by the exceptions) and the chances of staff taking industrial action over an ex colleague who worked there for a very short time is extremely unlikely.   So, as regards the dismissal, I do not think there is a "next course of action" other than to chalk it up to experience.


----------

