Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95139 Case Number: LCR14762 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: IARNROD EIREANN - and - A WORKER;NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION |
Appointment of a depotperson.
Recommendation:
The Court has considered the written and oral submissions made by
the parties.
Having considered all the issues involved in this particular case,
the Court recommends that the claimant accepts the extension of
his temporary employment to end September, 1995.
The Company to clarify, on a regular basis, to the claimant and
his Union, if he requests it, how he is progressing.
Given the Union's statement to the Court, the claimant might wish
to give consideration to working his extended employment period in
another location.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Pierce Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95139 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14762
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
IARNROD EIREANN
AND
A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION)
SUBJECT:
1. Appointment of a depotperson.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was appointed as a temporary depotperson in
Heuston Station on 20th May, 1993. He was advised that he
would be considered for appointment full-time after 12
months if his work performance was satisfactory.
At the end of the 12 month period, the worker was informed by
Management that his employment was to be terminated. He
contacted his Union representative who met with Management.
It was decided to extend the probationary period by 3 months.
At the end of that it was extended by another 3 months. In
December, 1994, Management again informed the worker of a
decision to terminate his employment.
Following a further meeting between Union and Management it
was decided to extend the period of probation to 30th June,
1995. The worker was also given the option to transfer to
Connolly Station, which he refused.
The Union referred the dispute to the Labour Court under
Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, on 17th
February, 1995. A Labour Court hearing took place on 27th
March, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker never received any verbal warning in his
first 6 months of probation, or written warnings in the
second 6 months, which is the usual procedure if the
Company decides to dismiss a worker after 12 months
probation. As such , he was unaware of any problems
with his work performance. The Union was also not
informed of any problems.
2. The Company claims that a written warning was put in the
worker's clocking-in slot. The worker refutes this.
Following the extension of his probation, the worker was
diligent in the performance of his duties. On enquiring
of his Duty Inspectors if they had any complaints about
his work he was told that there were none.
3. The Union had asked to see the complaints against the
worker on a number of occasions but the Company refused
to make them available. The worker was never given any
training for superior type duties.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In December, 1993, the worker's performance was reviewed
and found to be, at best, average. In March, 1994, the
station-master had to interview the worker in regards to
two specific serious instances of neglect. The worker
was given a verbal warning and this was later confirmed
in writing.
2. Following representations from the Union it was decided
to extend the worker's probation until 30th March, 1995.
The Company offered to transfer the worker to Connolly
Station where he would be considered for relief in
graded duties. The worker refused the offer.
3. The worker has been given a number of opportunities to
improve his work performance but to date there has been
no sign of improvement.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the written and oral submissions made by
the parties.
Having considered all the issues involved in this particular case,
the Court recommends that the claimant accepts the extension of
his temporary employment to end September, 1995.
The Company to clarify, on a regular basis, to the claimant and
his Union, if he requests it, how he is progressing.
Given the Union's statement to the Court, the claimant might wish
to give consideration to working his extended employment period in
another location.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
10th May, 1995 Finbarr Flood
C.O'N./D.T. ---------------
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.