LCR22421

FULL RECOMMENDATION

SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969

PARTIES :

K N NETWORKS
(REPRESENTED BY JONES CASSIDY BRETT SOLICITORS)

- AND -

A WORKER

DIVISION :

SUBJECT:

1.Breach Of Company's Probation Period Procedures.

BACKGROUND:

2.This is a claim under s.20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

The Worker claims that the Employer extended his probation period after 6 months employment, having failed to conduct a three month review, as provided for in the Employer’s own procedures. As a result, the Worker claims that he had no choice but to resign from the employment. A Labour Court Hearing took place on 10 June 2021.

WORKER'S ARGUMENTS

1. The company violated their probation procedures as they failed to organise the 3 month probation meeting and present their concerns, which deprived the claimant of a chance to improve.

2. If there were any concerns, they should have been brought to his attention within the first 6 months. He tried to reach his manager and HR asking to reconsider their decision, but they insisted on extending his probation period. This treatment is unfair and breaches his rights as an Employee.

3. He disagreed with the decision and cited the company’s Procedures for Probation, which state that the Line Manager must inform the employee if there were any issues with performance in the third month and/or immediately when issues arise.

4.The Worker was forced to resign. In effect, he was constructively dismissed.

COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:

1. The Company admits it did not hold a 3 month probation review and has apologised to the claimant for this, but this does not prevent a 6 month review or managing performance during employment.

2. The Company acted fairly and reasonably in all circumstances in extending the probation period to allow the Claimant further time to gain experience. It did not try to terminate employment, which was allowed under both the Company Policy and the employee’s contract. Instead, they offered support and training to the claimant as they genuinely hoped to see him succeed in passing probation.

3. The Company denies constructive, unfair dismissal and specifically denies any breach of contract, citing that the Claimant chose to resign in unreasonable circumstances. This waived his right to notice and any entitlements.

RECOMMENDATION:

The Court notes the acknowledgement of the Employer that it failed to adhere to its own Probation Policy. However, the Worker failed to exercise his rights under the company Grievance Procedure and has failed to establish that his resignation should be regarded as constructive dismissal.

Therefore, the Court is unable to recommend that any compensation be paid to the Worker.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Tom Geraghty
SL	______________________
Court Secretary	Tom Geraghty