100423949

AGAINST THE DECISION TO TERMINATE MADE ON 20/11/2003

WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

PARTIES TOUHID CHAWDHURY

APPELLANT

 -v-

 ROTTNEST ISLAND AUTHORITY

RESPONDENT

CORAM PUBLIC SERVICE APPEAL BOARD

 COMMISSIONER P E SCOTT – CHAIRMAN

 MR B HEWSON – BOARD MEMBER

 MS R SHADBOLT – BOARD MEMBER

DATE MONDAY, 2 AUGUST 2004

FILE NO PSAB 13 OF 2003

CITATION NO. 2004 WAIRC 12169

_______________________________________________________________________________

Catchwords Public Service Appeal Board – Appeal against decision to terminate employment – Dismissal occurred during period of probationary employment – Issues in relation to applicant’s performance – Procedural fairness considered – Principles applied – Applicant not harshly, oppressively and unfairly dismissed – Application dismissed – Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA) s 80I

Result Appeal dismissed

Representation

Appellant Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Mr R Heaperman and with him Mr K Chinnery

_______________________________________________________________________________

Reasons for Decision

(Given extemporaneously and edited by the Public Service Appeal Board)

1         The appellant was employed pursuant to a contract of employment with the respondent.  That contract provided for a 3 month probationary period.  The appellant's role was as Supervisor Bike Hire at the respondent's bike hire facility on Rottnest Island. 

2         The appellant commenced his employment on 25 August 2003 and the employer brought it to an end on 20 November 2003, in the final week of the 3 month probationary period. 

3         The evidence demonstrates, and we find, that the appellant received a statement of his duties and responsibilities soon after he commenced employment and they were explained to him.  Mr Robert Smithson, another supervisor who was an experienced supervisor, was to provide day-to-day training and he did so.

4         During the course of the 3 months’ probation, the appellant had a number of issues associated with his performance and competence brought to his attention, and he was reminded of the need to satisfactorily complete the probationary period.

5         The issues drawn to his attention included issues of unsatisfactory performance such as lack of invoicing for ferry hire bikes; not dealing with stock ordering as required and within a reasonable time; not satisfactorily dealing with a subcontractor on the premises without the appellant informing himself of who the person was; and not getting involved in the work of the bike shop with customers, and dealing with them when necessary.

6         At no time during the probationary period did the appellant display the appropriate level of competence for the position.  We find that during the 3 months’ probationary period, the appellant did not demonstrate the level of work performance as was reasonably required of him. 

7         The period of probation is one for an employee to demonstrate that he or she can fulfil the requirements of the job and fit in in the organisation.  We refer to the decision of the Full Bench in Hutchinson v Cable Sands (WA) Pty Ltd 79 WAIG 2635. 

8         There is no requirement for a formal warning during the probationary period. 

9         An extension of a probationary period might be provided where an employer requires further time to assess an employee's competency, or for other reasons, but there is no requirement to extend the probationary period if the employer has had a reasonable opportunity to assess an employee.

10      In this case, the respondent was entitled to come to a conclusion as to the appellant's probationary period and his performance, and was entitled to find that he was not satisfactory to continue as a permanent employee.  Therefore, there is no demonstration that the respondent was unfair in its treatment of the appellant, either in the probationary period, or in the process leading to the termination of employment. 

11      Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed.