FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1); INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT; 1969 PARTIES : IARNROD EIREANN - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY TRANSPORT SALARIED STAFFS' ASSOCIATION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. a) Re-Imposition of probation period;
b) Clerical Officer post in Limerick.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union is seeking the re-imposition of a probationary period for its member. It claims that the probationary period should have elapsed on the 17th of December, 1999 but that the worker was not informed that it had been re-imposed from the 7th of February, 2000. The claimant is currently employed as a Clerical Assistant at Ennis railway station.
The Union also claims that the worker applied for a Clerical Officer Class 3 post in Limerick. She was the only applicant for the post. However, no formal explanation has been given as to why she was not appointed to the position.
The Company states that the worker was transferred to her present position in June, 1999 and agreed the working and rostering arrangements. It also claims that the worker was given a copy of the "Terms of Employment Document" which indicated that her probationary period could be extended at the Company's discretion. The worker applied for a Clerical Officer Class 3 post in Limerick. The worker participated in a selection process for the post but was not successful. It states that it provides staff with the opportunity for feedback in relation to assessment for promotional positions which is available to the claimant.
The Union referred the dispute to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, and agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on the 20th of July, 2000.
RE-IMPOSITION OF PROBATION PERIOD
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company should backdate the worker's appointment to the end of her six month probationary period which was the 17th of December, 1999.
2. The worker was given no reason as to why her probationary period was extended by a further three months.
3. The worker has been treated unfairly by the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has the right to extend the probationary period of any employee where it considers it necessary.
2. The claimant was given a copy of the "Terms of Employment Document" which outlines policy arrangements in relation to probationary periods for clerical staff.
3. The Company rejects any suggestion that the claimant was treated unfairly.
CLERICAL OFFICER POST-LIMERICK
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Company should offer the worker the post of Clerical Officer Class 3 in Limerick because the probationary period can no longer be used as an excuse not to do so.
2. The action taken by the Company in re-imposing the probationary period was invalid.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The worker was interviewed for the Clerical Officer post in Limerick but was unsuccessful.
2. Management reserves the right to select the most suitable staff for promotional positions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having given consideration to all aspects of this case, the Court recommends the following:-
(a) the probationary period of the worker should be considered as having terminated on the 17th December 1999,
(b) on her return to work, she should seek the available feedback in relation to the assessment process for promotional positions,
and
(c) the Company should provide her with the opportunity to reapply for a Clerical Officer Class 3 position.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
31 July, 2000______________________
LW/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.