ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00002050
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A Garda | An Garda Siochana |
Representatives | Dermot O Brien Garda Representative Association | Internal Employee Relations Bureau |
Dispute(s):
Act | Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | IR - SC - 00002050 | 14/12/2023 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Date of Hearing: 08/05/2024
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended)following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any information relevant to the dispute.
Background:
This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. Probation periods and assignment of Garda recruits were impacted by the Covid 19 Pandemic. |
Summary of Workers Case:
The worker submitted that his probation was extended unfairly and not in line with the measures taken by the employer in light of the Covid 19 pandemic. As a result of this, his incremental date was unfairly delayed. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The employer submitted that the complaint was the subject of its grievance procedure and that its management must be permitted to exercise its rights and obligations in accordance with the procedures laid down in regulations. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties. All new recruits were impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. This resulted in a cohort of recruits being assigned to Garda stations in a different manner than normal. The employee completed the academic part of his training, and while on the practical part of his training was required to undertake a 30-day personal development programme. He successfully completed that programme in May 2022. There were also two minor disciplinary issues that occurred during the nine-month probation period up to December 2022. The disciplinary matters were dealt with in accordance with the procedures and the employee was given a verbal warning. At the end of the probation period in December 2022, the employee’s probation was extended for a further three months. This resulted in the employee’s incremental date being delayed by between 12 and 15 months. Having considered the documentation and submissions, no reason was given for the additional three months extension of probation other than the employee had received a verbal warning for two minor disciplinary matters. On the face of it, therefore it appears that the employee was subjected to a disciplinary procedure which was completed, and then was subjected to an additional disciplinary sanction over and above what any other employee would have received in a similar situation. The employee was not given any opportunity to feed into this additional disciplinary sanction nor any reasoning as to why an additional sanction should have been imposed upon him. This does not appear to be in line with the principles of fairness and natural justice. Having regard to the impact of the three-month extension of his probation, I consider that this had a disproportionate impact upon the employee. The consideration of this additional disciplinary sanction does not appear to have been reduced to writing nor put to the employee. To my mind, this is therefore unsupportable. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I recommend that the additional sanction of a three-month extension to the employees’ probation from December 2022 to March 2023 be removed from his personnel file. In order that the impact upon the employee be limited I recommend that his incremental date revert to that of his classmates. The employee asserted that his colleagues who joined with him in January 2020 and who successfully passed their probation and received their incremental payment in December 2022 received that payment in a block, back-dated back to 20 March 2022. The same circumstances should apply to the employee at the centre of this dispute. Incremental dates also changed to 20 March 2022.
As no reason was given to extend his probation, and my recommendation is that the three-month extension be removed from his file, his incremental date should revert to 20 March 2022 in line with that of his colleagues.
I recommend that when it is considered appropriate to sanction an individual employee, notes of discussions are kept, and the employee should be informed in writing and permitted to input into the process in accordance with the principles of fairness and natural justice.
Dated: 10th May 2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Key Words:
IR complaint – extension of probation – extension not supported by paperwork |