Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89457 Case Number: LCR12494 Section / Act: S67 Parties: RADIO TELEFIS EIREANN - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Claim on behalf of one security officer for compensation for loss of earnings.
Recommendation:
6. Having regard to the terms of Recommendation No. 11250, which,
having considered the previous circumstances of the worker's case,
recommended yet a further probationary period at the job, thereby
clearly inferring that earlier delays in permanent appointment
were not entirely unjustified, the Court does not recommend the
payment of compensation either for the previous period of demotion
or for the delay in incremental increases arising from prolonged
probationary terms.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Shiel Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89457 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12494
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: RADIO TELEFIS EIREANN
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of one security officer for compensation for
loss of earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker who has been employed by R.T.E. since 1977 was
transferred from the services division to security duties in
October, 1984. The general attendant grade in which he had been
serving was abolished at that time and incumbents of the grade
were redeployed into other grades including that of security
officer. During his probationary year as a security officer the
worker received a number of verbal and written warnings relating
to various matters. In May, 1985 the Personnel Administration
Manager informed him in writing that his probation was being
extended by six months, up to 31st March, 1986. On 15th May, 1986
he was informed by letter that due to his unsatisfactory
performance during his probation his employment as a security
officer was being terminated and that as and from 26th May, he was
to revert to the grade of services assistant. The worker appealed
this decision to an internal Appeal Board which found against him
on all issues but stated that he should remain in the grade of
security officer for a further seven months and that his
performance be assessed monthly. In February, 1987 he was
informed that as and from 16th of that month he was to be taken
off security officer duties and assigned to duties within general
services. He was assigned to services for the six month period
February to July, 1987. The matter was the subject of Labour
Court Recommendation No. 11250 dated 22nd June, 1987 which
stated:-
"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."
This Recommendation was implemented and the worker was made
permanent in his post as security officer. On 26th February, 1988
he received an incremental salary increase. The scale is a four
point one and this brought him to point 3 where he still remains.
3. In August, 1988, the Union, on behalf of the worker, sought
"compensation for the financial losses incurred" during the period
February to July, 1987. It also sought compensation for the loss
of increments. The loss was quantified by the Union as
approximately #6,200. R.T.E. rejected this claim. The matter was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour on 19th
October, 1988 and a conciliation conference took place on 29th
November, 1988 at which no agreement was reached. In June, 1989
the parties agreed to refer the matter to a full Court hearing. A
Court hearing took place on 24th July, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union on behalf of the worker is seeking compensation
for the loss of earnings which he has incurred. These losses
are substantial. As a result of his transfer to services
during the period February to July, 1987, he lost #3,100.
(This figure takes into account basic pay shift premium and
overtime). His loss arising from non receipt of increments is
#3,180. He remains on point 3 of a 4-point scale.
2. The matters which gave rise to the disciplinary actions
were, in the main, trivial incidents. The monthly assessments
which took place were not satisfactory from the Union's point
of view. It is considered that the worker was unjustly
treated by R.T.E.
3. The worker did complete his probation satisfactorily. It
is the Union's view that payment of compensation would be in
keeping with the spirit of Labour Court Recommendation Number
11250.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The worker was given two and a half years to bring his
standard of performance up to an acceptable level before it
was decided to assign him to other duties, indicating the
reasonableness shown by management. The worker himself was
responsible for any loss which he incurred.
2. The question of loss of earnings was not mentioned in
L.C.R. 11250. R.T.E. believes that it was therefore
considered by the Court to be irrelevant. The matter was not
raised again until a year after the Recommendation issued. It
is difficult not to draw the conclusion that this claim is
motivated by opportunism.
3. Management takes its responsibilities in relation to
security very seriously. The application of the disciplinary
procedures must be viewed in this context. To concede the
present claim for loss of earnings would imply that the worker
is completely blameless and would undermine the future
effectiveness of the disciplinary procedures.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. Having regard to the terms of Recommendation No. 11250, which,
having considered the previous circumstances of the worker's case,
recommended yet a further probationary period at the job, thereby
clearly inferring that earlier delays in permanent appointment
were not entirely unjustified, the Court does not recommend the
payment of compensation either for the previous period of demotion
or for the delay in incremental increases arising from prolonged
probationary terms.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
______________________
31st July, 1989 Deputy Chairman.
A.K./J.C.