WRC Awards €10,000 to Car Salesman Following Unfair Dismissal

❖     Decision reported February 2026

What happened

In a decision reported in February 2026, the WRC awarded €10,000 to a car salesman who was dismissed by a motor dealership following alleged performance issues.

The employer asserted that sales targets were not being met and that the employee’s overall contribution had declined. The dismissal was framed as a performance based decision in the context of commercial pressures within the motor industry.

The employee argued that he had not been placed on any formal performance improvement process, had not received written warnings, and was not informed that his job was in jeopardy prior to dismissal.

The WRC examined both the substantive justification for dismissal and whether fair procedures had been followed.

What the WRC focused on

The Adjudication Officer concentrated on several core issues:

●       Whether clear performance targets had been communicated

●       Whether objective performance data supported the dismissal

●       Whether a formal performance management process had been implemented

●       Whether the employee had been given a reasonable opportunity to improve

●       Whether dismissal was proportionate

The WRC accepted that employers are entitled to set sales targets and expect performance standards to be met. However, capability dismissals require a structured and transparent process.

In this case, there was insufficient evidence that the employee had been placed on formal notice that his performance was unsatisfactory to the extent that dismissal was being contemplated.

There was no documented improvement plan, no staged warnings, and limited evidence of structured review meetings.

Why the dismissal failed

The WRC reiterated that a dismissal for poor performance must demonstrate both substantive justification and procedural fairness.

Even where performance concerns are genuine, an employer must show that:

●       Clear standards were communicated

●       Concerns were documented

●       Support and opportunity to improve were provided

●       The employee understood that dismissal was a possible outcome

The absence of a formal performance management framework was fatal to the employer’s defence.

The dismissal was therefore found to be unfair, and compensation of €10,000 was awarded.

Key lessons for employers

●       Performance dismissals require documented targets and evidence.

●       Informal dissatisfaction is not sufficient.

●       Employees must be placed clearly on notice that their role is at risk.

●       A structured improvement plan is essential.

●       Proportionality and process are central to defensibility.

●       Commercial pressure does not dilute procedural obligations.

If your business is managing underperformance or considering termination for capability reasons, we can support you in implementing a compliant and defensible performance management framework.

Contact MSS The HR People at info@mssthehrpeople.ie, Ph 018870690 or visit our website.