Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90282 Case Number: LCR13014 Section / Act: S67 Parties: AER LINGUS - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim, by the Union, for an extended probationary period for a clerical worker.
Recommendation:
5. Having heard the submissions made by the parties the Court is
not satisfied that the Company's training of the worker concerned
differed in any respect from that of other recruits, and it seems
that some effort was made to assist her reach the required
standard. In the circumstances the Court does not consider an
extension of the probationary period to be warranted and does not
therefore recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90282 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13014
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: AER LINGUS
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim, by the Union, for an extended probationary period for a
clerical worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was recruited into the Company on 1st
May, 1989 as a clerical worker in the cargo department based at
Dublin Airport. Her employment was subject to satisfactory
completion of a 6 months probationary period. Along with three
other new workers who joined the cargo department she received
three weeks classroom training and subsequent on-the-job training.
Following the formal training period the worker failed to reach
the standards required by the Company. In July, 1989 the worker
was spoken to by management following reports from her supervisors
of poor performance. There was a subsequent improvement by the
worker which the Company claims was not sustained. At the end of
the 6 month probationary period the worker's employment with the
Company was terminated in November, 1989. The Union claimed that
the worker was unfairly treated by the Company and sought a three
month extension of the probationary period which the Company
rejected. No agreement was reached at local level and the matter
was referred on 28th February, 1990 to the conciliation service of
the Labour Court. A conciliation conference was held on 2nd
April, 1990 at which no agreement was reached and the matter was
referred on 29th May, 1990 to a full hearing of the Labour Court.
The hearing took place on 23rd August, 1990 (the earliest date
suitable to both parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was not given a fair chance to prove her worth.
She received inadequate training from the start and when
difficulties arose she was not given proper explanations and
assistance by her supervisors. Her work performance suffered
as a result.
2. The worker was recruited into the cargo department with
others who already had some basic computer knowledge and
skills. She was therefore at a disadvantage in comparison to
them but did not receive any extra training or assistance.
3. When the worker was spoken to about her work performance,
she sought advice on how to be organised within the system at
work. Instead of help she received verbal abuse from
supervisors. This strained relationship with her supervisors
made the worker nervous about her work and undermined her self
confidence. As a result she was more likely to make mistakes.
4. The worker is suitable for a clerical position with the
Company but her employment was terminated through no fault of
her own. The Company would have no difficulty in placing her
in an alternative position. As the worker was unfairly
treated in the cargo department she should be given a further
period of three months probation in a different department.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was not unfairly treated by the Company. Every
opportunity was extended to the worker so that a fair
assessment of her performance could be made. Time and
assistance were given to help her overcome her difficulties
but she failed to meet the required standard.
2. Three workers who were taken on at the same time received
the same training and no problems arose regarding their work.
Although the worker's training was more comprehensive she fell
short of the standard achieved by the other workers.
3. The Company is entitled to discharge employees from
service during or at the end of probation when performance is
not satisfactory. The six months probationary period is part
of the selection process and provides time to assess the
overall suitability of people for employment in the Company.
The worker received a fair and honest assessment and was found
to be unsuitable for employment with the Company.
4. Occasionally the initial probationary period is extended
beyond 6 months where it is felt that training, guidance or
time may help to bring new staff up to the required standard.
The nature of the unsuitability in the worker's case is that a
extension to the probationary period is not appropriate.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having heard the submissions made by the parties the Court is
not satisfied that the Company's training of the worker concerned
differed in any respect from that of other recruits, and it seems
that some effort was made to assist her reach the required
standard. In the circumstances the Court does not consider an
extension of the probationary period to be warranted and does not
therefore recommend concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
______________________
7th September, 1990 Deputy Chairman.
A.S./J.C.