Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91333 Case Number: AD9171 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: COCA COLA BOTTLERS - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. BC128/91.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made and as it is
quite clear that the worker concerned was on probation the Court
does not consider that the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation
should be changed.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91333 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD7191
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
PARTIES: COCA COLA BOTTLERS
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. BC128/91.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was appointed to the position of trainee
supervisor on the 24th September, 1990. He was on a six month
probation period. On the 4th March, 1991 the worker was advised
by his manager that he was not suitable for the role of
supervisor and he was placed back on the casual list for bottle
sorters. The Union objected to this action and asked the Company
to reverse its decision and extend the worker's probation period.
The Company refused this request. The Union referred the dispute
to a Rights Commissioner for investigation on the 29th May, 1991.
On the 11th June, 1991 the Rights Commissioner issued his
recommendation as follows:
"In the light of the above I must hold that Management did not
act unfairly in terminating the probationary employment of
the worker as Trainee Supervisor. I recommend accordingly."
(The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation).
On the 27th June, 1991 the Union appealed the recommendation to
the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations
Act 1969. A Court hearing was held on the 26th July, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. When the worker concerned took up the position of
trainee supervisor (details of job description supplied to
the Court), it was a new position and was not yet agreed with
the Union. The three other supervisory positions in the
distribution area are represented by the Union and are on a
salary of £17,750 plus an incentive bonus. The worker
concerned was on a salary of £10,000 p.a.
2. During probation in mid January 1991 the worker
concerned was counselled on his performance with the
following observation by the Company "his application to his
job was good technically but his interpersonal skills were
poor, training would be provided". However, the worker did
not receive this training. The only counselling he received
was in the course of an informal conversation which took
place in a car with a member of Management while travelling
from depot to depot.
3. In mid February the worker was requested to prepare a
report on the freight system by the distribution manager, who
was out of Dublin. The worker attempted to carry out this
request but, due to "down" time on the computer system, was
unable to complete this report during normal working hours.
He was due to leave early on the Friday and did so having
worked extensive overtime, as requested, during the previous
period. The report was completed by the distribution
manager.
4. When the Company advised the worker that his employment
would be terminated at the end of March he objected to the
decision and sought Union representation. Notwithstanding
the status of a probationary position the Company took a
decision to terminate the worker's employment before
affording him an opportunity to be represented. Natural
justice was not served.
5. The expections of Management expanded as the
probationary period proceeded with regard to the performance
levels and requirements of the position of trainee
supervisor. The worker concerned was considered by his
colleagues, the three distribution supervisors, to be
adequately carrying out the normal duties. The worker, on a
salary of £7,000 less per annum, worked all hours required
including weekends and at Christmas. This indicated a
co-operative attitude and willing approach.
6. The Company was premature in terminating the employment
of the worker concerned especially given the evolving
requirements of this new position. Management was
unreasonable in refusing to extend his probation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. When the worker concerned was appointed to the position
of trainee supervisor it was clearly outlined at the
interview and subsequent discussions that his core
responsibilities required a working knowledge of all aspects
of distribution. A number of problems emerged with regard to
the worker's performance and attitude during his probation
(details supplied to the Court).
2. During January 1991 the distribution manager spoke to
the worker about the requirements of the job, specifically on
the immediate requirement to learn about the distribution
aspects of the job, as he had acquired sufficient knowledge
on the dispatch side. It was clearly conveyed to the worker
that a knowledge of routing/rescheduling and freight movement
would be required if he was to cover the depot supervisor's
role. The worker failed to take on board this requirement
and requests by his manager to get more involved in
distribution were ignored.
3. He was instructed to go to the distribution office on
the 28th February, 1991 to commence work on the freight
system as there was an urgent requirement for the completion
of inputting data onto the computer system. The worker did
not carry out this instruction. He left early on Friday, 1st
March notwithstanding the urgent need for the freight reports
to be completed and without seeking permission from his
manager.
4. During the worker's probation he did not demonstrate an
interest or willingness to involve himself in the full range
of activities as requested by the Company. In some cases he
ignored specific instructions in this regard. He was also
spoken to about the need to improve his attitude and his
interpersonal skills and their importance in a supervisory
position. He did not make a noticeable improvement in either
of these areas.
5. The worker was taken on to train as a supervisor and was
on a six month probationary period. During a probationary
period, in Coca Cola Bottlers as in all other companies,
employees are operating on a trial basis and can at the
discretion of Management be let go either during or at the
end of such a trial period. This is a well established norm
in industrial relations and the Company is satisfied that the
worker concerned was fully aware that he was on probation.
6. The right of the Company to select and retain employees
who meet the full needs of the job is fundamental to its
success in meeting the competitive needs of the business.
DECISION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made and as it is
quite clear that the worker concerned was on probation the Court
does not consider that the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation
should be changed.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
19th August, 1991 John O'Connell
T.O'D. / M.O'C. _______________
Deputy Chairman