LCR22951

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00041942 (CA-00052774-001)

BACKGROUND:

The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 12 September 2023 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

On 08 August 2023 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:

“Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.

The Recommendation is that all parties accept that no Unfair Dismissal took place and that a Probationary Contract was ended in keeping with procedures.

It is recommended that one week’s notice pay (without any admission of liability) be paid to the Worker”

A Labour Court hearing took place on 12 March 2024.

RECOMMENDATION:

This is an appeal by a Worker of the Recommendation of an Adjudication Officer. The issues in dispute between the parties relates to the dismissal of the Worker while on probation.  The Adjudication Officer held that the Complainant was not unfairly dismissed but recommended one weeks’ notice pay be paid.

 The Worker commenced work with this employer on the 4th October 2021, as an experienced Accommodation Supervisor. She was employed on a 39-hour week and her hourly rate of pay was €13.  She was dismissed on the 2nd April 2022.

 The Worker stated that when she was called to a meeting and told that she had not successfully completed her probation she was very surprised. She had been working hard and helping out staff with their tasks. She had attended a probationary hearing in January and some areas had been identified as needing improvement, but others were identified as being very good. She felt there were some issues with another supervisor and that she had raised them informally, but they had not been addressed. She accepted that she had not instigated any of the Employers procedures such as grievance procedure etc. She felt that the number of bedrooms assigned to the staff she supervised meant they were pushed to get them completed in the time allowed so she generally tried to help them out. When it was put to her the Worker accepted the number of rooms assigned were within the norm in the industry. The Worker accepted that she had received training on all aspects of her role and had received additional training. The Worker stated that between month three and month six no one had spoken to her about her work, so it came as a shock that she was being let go for not successfully completing her probationary period.

 The Employer stated that at the Workers three-month review in January in two of the six areas assessed she required improvement. One of the concerns at that time was her ability to grasp the supervisory nature of her role and demonstrate the appropriate skills. It would be normal for an Accommodation Supervisor to be left alone to open up a shift. In general, that would happen after three to four weeks. In this Workers case by the time of her three months review she still had not opened a shift on her own. it was felt that she needed additional training in the hotel’s software programmes, basic computer skills, and further training on checking standards of the rooms. This additional training was provided in January.

 When the Worker was assigned to open a shift on her own towards the end of February 2022, she struggled, and accommodation staff complained they had to wait 30 minutes for their daily list. This delay ate into the time they were allotted to clean rooms. In terms of standards for clean rooms she still struggled to find the defects that had been placed in each room when she was checked.   The issues were addressed with the Worker on an ongoing basis by her line manager. On the 19 February 2022, she was given an ‘employee job chat’ for breaking policies and procedures.

By letter of 30th March 2022, the Worker was invited to a probationary meeting. The letter informed her of the right to be represented, set out that there were still issues with her performance, and that failure to successfully complete probation could lead to termination.  At the meeting the Worker did not address the issues raised but sought to raise issues about the number of rooms allocated to accommodation staff and their pay rates. The outcome of the meeting was that she did not meet the standard required in three out of the six areas, and that she had demonstrated a lack of understanding of the supervisory nature of her role. On that basis her employment was terminated.

The Worker was advised that she could appeal the decision which she did. During the appeal hearing the Worker stated that she was not here to get her job back but wanted to raise issues that she had during her time as an employee. The appeal upheld the decision that she had not successfully completed her probationary period resulting in her employment being terminated.

 The Court having considered the submissions of the parties finds that the Worker was afforded fair procedure in coming to the decision to terminate her employment as she had not passed her probationary period. The Court notes that both parties agreed that the one weeks pay in lieu of notice recommended by the Adjudication Officer has been paid.

The Recommendation of the Adjudication officer is upheld.

 The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Louise O'Donnell
AR	______________________
12 April 2024	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Aidan Ralph, Court Secretary.