Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94292 Case Number: LCR14535 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: NORTHERN IRELAND TOURIST BOARD - and - A WORKER;MAUREEN FLANAGAN |
Dispute concerning an alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
Recommendation:
The Court has fully considered all of the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions.
The Court finds that, given the Tourist Board was at a
developmental stage, the employee concerned was required to
commence duty at the start of the peak period with little if any
induction into the job and the policies of the Tourist Board, it
was inappropriate to judge the employee's progress during this
period as part of her probation.
The Court, however, notes the employee was not prepared to have
her probation period extended.
In all the circumstances the Court finds that, given the date the
appointment was effected, the lack of induction into the job and
the effect of commencing work at the start of the peak period, the
Tourist Board should have ensured arrangements were made to give
the employee a reasonable opportunity to become familiar with,and
effectively carry out, the duties required.
To this extent, the Court finds that the Tourist Board was
unreasonable in the manner in which it dealt with the employee.
Given, however, that the Tourist Board was prepared to continue
the employee in employment, albeit by extending her probationary
period, and this was refused by the employee, the Court does not
find that any remedy is warranted.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94292 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14535
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
NORTHERN IRELAND TOURIST BOARD
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning an alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The worker commenced employment with the Board on 11th
May, 1992 as Information Services Manager. She had
applied for the position of Information Officer but
following interview, she was offered the more senior
position. On 18th December, 1992, the worker resigned
her position. The worker claimed that she had been
unfairly dismissed as the Company sought to extend her
agreed 6 months probation.
2. On 16th May, 1994, the claim for alleged unfair
dismissal was referred to the Labour Court under Section
20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour
Court investigation took place on 7th July, 1994.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker commenced employment with the Board with
strong professional commendations from previous
employers and a successful interview with the Board.
The worker worked to the best of her ability, expertise
and skill in her new position. The Board made various
allegations about the worker's performance including
weaknesses in performance necessitating remedial action
and an alleged inability to work as part of a team
(details supplied). The worker denies all of the
Board's allegations.
2. When the decision to extend her probation was taken, the
worker was denied all reasonable opportunities of
explaining her position (details supplied). The worker
was treated unfairly by the Board which behaved in such
a manner that an unlawful and incorrect decision to
dismiss the worker was reached. The worker always
behaved in a professional and dedicated manner and
displayed the ability to work for the betterment of the
Board.
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was appointed just before the busy tourist
season and on the job training was limited. Despite the
fact that difficulties in work quality and getting on
with others emerged, the Board delayed dealing
specifically with the problem until after the summer
period. After a while a picture of reluctance to work
at weekends and evenings emerged (details supplied) and
a number of problems arose with customer complaints.
2. The management of the Board sought to deal with the
worker's work difficulties in a positive and
constructive fashion (details supplied). However, it
found it difficult to discuss the difficulties with the
worker and it noted that the worker was reluctant to
seek assistance. Following long consideration of the
worker's position, it was decided to extend her
probation. The worker refused to accept this and
resigned. The worker was not dismissed.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has fully considered all of the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions.
The Court finds that, given the Tourist Board was at a
developmental stage, the employee concerned was required to
commence duty at the start of the peak period with little if any
induction into the job and the policies of the Tourist Board, it
was inappropriate to judge the employee's progress during this
period as part of her probation.
The Court, however, notes the employee was not prepared to have
her probation period extended.
In all the circumstances the Court finds that, given the date the
appointment was effected, the lack of induction into the job and
the effect of commencing work at the start of the peak period, the
Tourist Board should have ensured arrangements were made to give
the employee a reasonable opportunity to become familiar with,and
effectively carry out, the duties required.
To this extent, the Court finds that the Tourist Board was
unreasonable in the manner in which it dealt with the employee.
Given, however, that the Tourist Board was prepared to continue
the employee in employment, albeit by extending her probationary
period, and this was refused by the employee, the Court does not
find that any remedy is warranted.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
4th August, 1994 Tom McGrath
J.F./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.