LCR23054

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00049272 (CA-00060535, IR-SC-0002050)

BACKGROUND:

The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 17 June 2024 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

 On 10 May 2024 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.

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.

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.’’  

A Labour Court hearing took place on 3 October 2024.

DECISION:

This is an appeal by the Worker of Decision ADJ-00044299 of an Adjudication Officer in respect of his complaint that his probation period was extended unfairly and not in line with the measures taken by the employer arising from the COVID 19 pandemic. The impact of this extension was that his incremental date was unfairly delayed. The Adjudication Officer recommended that the sanction of three-month extension from December 2022 to March 2023 be removed from his file and that his incremental date revert to that of his classmates.

The GRA on behalf of the Worker informed the Court that the Worker joined the force in January 2020 and in March 2020 to augment An Garda Siochana’s response to the public health crisis, the Garda Commissioner took the operational decision to attest 522 Garda Probationers and deploy them to the frontline nationwide.  At that time all non-essential training undertaken at the Garda College was suspended. The Worker was attested on March 20th, 2020, and completed his training on 20th March 2022. On March 14th, 2022, all probationer Garda members in the Workers cohort, had their probation extended by nine months to allow the full cycle of training and assessment to occur. This meant their probation was extended until 20th December 2022. An undertaken was given by the Garda Commissioner in March 2022 following the decision to extend the probation that “they will not be disadvantaged on their date of seniority as a substantive Garda as it will be backdated to when they had originally anticipated being signed out of their probation. This obviously depends upon successfully completing the probationary period.”

At the time the extension was implemented the Workers affected were notified and given two reasons for the extension 1) the fact that they had not had time to complete the training and 2) the suspension of training due to COVID 19. This Workers notification contained an additional bullet point which stated, “Local Management have identified areas of Probationer Garda Larrighy’s work which will require improvement”.

During the period March 20022 to December 2022 arising from issues in the workplace the Worker had a development plan put in place to address the issues highlighted by local management.  The Worker existed the plan on 16th May 2022 having successfully completing same. The Worker was involved in two Regulation 10 disciplinary’s in January 2022, and September 2022 the outcome of which was, he was administered “advice”. It is the Unions submission that as these matters were dealt with at that time they should not have been considered as part of the probation process. On the 12th October 2022, the Worker was informed that he had passed his training. In correspondence dated 18th October 2022,  Supt Murphy, Foundation Training, Garda College highlighted the disciplinary matters and the imposition of a development plan as informing his recommendation to further extend the Workers probation. His probation was extended for a further three months from 20th December 2022 to March 20th, 2023. It is the Unions position that the inclusion of the disciplinary process and the development plan which he had successfully completed in the decision to extend his probation was inappropriate. The impact of this has been that he received his increment a year later than the people he trained with. The Worker is seeking his increments inclusive of his qualification increments to be paid from the same date as his colleagues March 2022.

The Employer submitted that the commitment to backdate the probationer’s confirmation to the original planned date was qualified by the fact it stated that it was “assuming there are no other issues arising.” In this Workers case and the case of others in his class, issues did arise, and he was treated the same as other people who had issues during their probation period. It is the Employers position that regardless of the decision to extend everybody’s probation, this Workers probation would have been extended based on issues that arose with his work. The Employer does not accept that because issues are addressed during the probation that they cannot factor them into the decision as to whether to extend probation, let the person go, or confirm they have successfully completed their probation.

 The Worker successfully completed his probation in March 2023, and that is the date his increments including qualification increments are due from. The Worker has progressed this issue through the internal grievance procedure and his complaint was not upheld.

Decision

The Court having listened carefully to both sides finds that the Employer operated within the agreed procedures and on that basis cannot recommend concession of the Workers claim.

 The Decision of the Adjudication Officer is set aside.

 The Court so Decides.

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

NOTE

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