Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87331 Case Number: LCR11250 Section / Act: S67 Parties: R.T.E. - and - ITGWU |
Union claim for the reinstatement of a worker to the grade of security officer.
Recommendation:
6. The Court recommends that the claimant be restored to the
position of security guard and serve a further seven-month
probationary period. During that period a monthly assessment
should be carried out and details of such assessment minuted and
agreed between the parties. The Court further considers that the
Union representative should be informed of the outcome of these
monthly assessments.
If at the end of the seven-month probationary period the claimant
has been found to be satisfactory he should be appointed
permanently.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Shiel Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87331 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11250
CC87313 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11250
Parties: RADIO TELEFIS EIREANN
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Union claim for the reinstatement of a worker to the grade of
security officer.
Background:
2. The worker concerned joined RTE in 1977 as an office
messenger and served a six month probationary period. He was
subsequently confirmed in his appointment in March, 1978. In May,
1981, he was appointed to the now defunct position of general
attendant on a trial basis for a six month period and was
appointed on a permanent basis in December, 1981. In July, 1984,
following the conclusion of a productivity agreement between the
ITGWU and RTE, the grade of general attendant was abolished and
incumbents of the grade were redeployed into other grades,
including that of security officer.
3. In accordance with the terms of the agreement, the worker
concerned was appointed to the grade of security officer on the
1st October, 1984. This post carried a twelve month probationary
period. During this time, the claimant received both verbal and
written warnings from Management concerning his job performance
and general behaviour (details supplied to the Court). On the
27th May, 1985, he was written to by the Personnel Administration
Manager and informed that his probationary period was being
extended by six months, up to the 31st March, 1986. Management
continued to be dissatisfied with the worker's performance in his
job and on the 15th May, 1986, he was informed by letter that due
to his unsatisfactory performance of duties during his
probationary period his employment as a security officer was being
terminated and that as and from the 26th May he was to revert to
the grade of services assistant. This decision would have
resulted in a substantial loss of earnings for the worker (from
approximately #14,000 to approximately #8,000) and he appealed the
decision. An Appeal Board consisting of the Director of Personnel
and the Director of Engineering was established to consider the
issue.
Following the Appeal Board hearing, the worker was informed by
letter dated the 26th May, 1986 that the Board had found against
him on all issues but that he should remain in the grade of
security officer for a further seven months and that his
performance be assessed monthly. However, Management claim that
his performance failed to improve during this period and on the
9th February, 1987, he was informed that he was not considered
suitable for employment as a security officer and that as and from
the 16th February, 1987, he was to be assigned to duties within
General Services. The Union claimed that the monthly assessments
did not take place on a monthly basis in accordance with the
Appeal Board's decision and that no specific complaints were made
against the claimant. On the 19th February, 1987, the Union
referred the matter to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. No agreement was reached at a conciliation conference held
on the 14th April (the earliest date suitable to the parties) and
the matter was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing took place on the 22nd May, 1987.
Union's arguments:
4. (a) Since his promotion into the security area, the worker
concerned has had a number of disciplinary letters
issued to him (details supplied to the Court). While
these appear at first glance to be of a very serious
nature, in effect most of them have been based on
trivial incidents.
(b) In its letter of the 26th May, 1986, Management
undertook to suspend judgement and sit to consider the
position after seven months. During this period the
worker was to be assessed on a monthly basis. The
appeals procedure through which he made his appeal has
no trade union involvement and the Union does not
consider it fair. In this case, the Management
reviewed a previous decision of management colleagues
without even the pretence of fairness or impartiality.
(c) In spite of this, the worker accepted the decision of
the Appeals Board. However, his local line management
apparently did not. Their attitude was that the only
affect of the Appeal Board's decision was that they had
to wait another seven months to get rid of him. The
monthly assessments were a farce. They did not take
place on a regular basis in accordance with the Board's
decision and consisted of nothing more than a meeting
where the line managers would tell him that he was
unsatisfactory but would refuse to say why or to give
specifics. Their usual comment was that they had
"nothing positive or nothing adverse to say". They
went to some lengths to find issues that would damage
his chances in the assessments and the issues that they
came up with could have been written to any member of
the security staff with equal validity.
(d) In the Union's view RTE has been unjust to the claimant
in the way this matter was handled. On the one hand it
says that he was unsuitable for the post to which he
was promoted. It then in effect stripped him of the
post and made him a probationary employee in a lesser
post.
(e) There have been many people in RTE who have been
promoted and who, for one reason or another, have not
succeeded in their new post. The procedure is for them
to revert to their old post with no disciplinary
elements. This case is the first time that an employee
has lost his permanent status in this way.
(f) None of the matters which the claimant has been accused
of are, in the Union's view, serious enough to cost him
in excess of #5,000 per annum for the rest of his
career in RTE. Neither are they serious enough to cost
him his job, which will be the inevitable result of him
being placed on probation under some of the same people
who handled the so-called "assessments".
(g) The Union asks the Court to recommend that RTE place
the claimant back into security under the terms of the
letter of the 26th May, 1986, and that this time RTE
carries out the terms and spirit of the letter. In
addition, it also asks the Court to recommend that the
worker is a permanent employee of RTE since 1977 and
that this status cannot be removed from him except
under the terms of the Unfair Dismissals Act.
Management's arguments:
5. (i) The RTE position is that over a period of approximately
27 months, the claimant has shown that he is unsuited
to the post of security officer. His general attitude
to his work has been irresponsible and immature.
(ii) Given the nature of the organisation, security officers
in RTE must carry out their duties to the highest
standards. The worker concerned was required to carry
out his duties to the same standard as that of his
colleagues, no more and no less.
(iii) He was given the same facilities, training and advice
as his colleagues in order to perform his duties.
Other former general attendant colleagues who were
redeployed into the security officer grade at the same
time met the required standard.
(iv) All the requirements of natural and procedural justice
have been met in RTE's handling of this case. He was
made fully aware of his shortcomings generally and in
particular instances. His original non-confirmation
per the Personnel Administration Manager's letter of
15th May, 1986, was deferred to afford him the
opportunity to process an appeal. He was afforded the
right to be represented at the appeal and he was given
full knowledge of the evidence against him.
(v) Despite the fact that the Appeal Board upheld the
original decision, he was granted a further 7 months in
which to rectify his "unacceptable inadequacies." The
two incidents, (details supplied to the Court) during
that period clearly illustrate his attitude to his
duties.
(vi) RTE requires its security officers to be of the highest
standards. Simply stated, the claimant failed to meet
those standards.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court recommends that the claimant be restored to the
position of security guard and serve a further seven-month
probationary period. During that period a monthly assessment
should be carried out and details of such assessment minuted and
agreed between the parties. The Court further considers that the
Union representative should be informed of the outcome of these
monthly assessments.
If at the end of the seven-month probationary period the claimant
has been found to be satisfactory he should be appointed
permanently.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
__22nd__June,____1987. ___________________
D. H. / M. F. Deputy Chairman