Probation periods: A tool to assess employee skills

A probation period allows employers to measure an employee’s skill set within the first few months of their contract. However, it does require employers to put several processes in place first.

The probation period must be clearly defined in the labour contract signed by the new hire. This clause must set out the time period for the probation and the notice period to be applied should the employee not meet the required performance standards.

Many contracts include three months for probation, but it may differ depending on the job requirements. There is no legislation dictating how long the probation period must be. However, the Labour Relations Act does say it should be “reasonable” and stipulated in advance in the employment contract. The length of probation is usually determined in relation to the job and the time required to assess the employee’s performance. 

The primary reason for a probation period is to allow the employer to assess the employee’s competence to perform the job. This lowers the company’s hiring risk by allowing them to assess the employee’s skills. The probation period also allows an employer to identify if there are any areas in which the new hire requires training or upskilling.

The Labour Relations Act defines the purpose of the probation period as giving “the employer an opportunity to evaluate the employee’s performance before confirming the appointment”.

However, the Act states that a probation period should only be used in this spirit. This means that a company cannot use the probation period as a form of short-term hiring. In fact, dismissing an employee once they have completed their probation period to hire a new person could constitute unfair labour practice.

As the probation period exists to measure the employee’s suitability for the post, the employer is required to assess the staff member's performance from day one. Thus, the employer must have a clearly defined and measurable work plan. The employee will need to be measured against clear and quantifiable requirements, and their performance against these will need to be assessed throughout the probation period.

The onus is on the employer to give the worker evaluation, instruction and training during this period. If the employer determines that the worker’s performance is below standard, the employer must advise the employee of the areas in which they are failing to meet the required performance standards.

The employer is allowed to extend the probation period, but only if the reason relates to the purpose of probation. The employer will have to notify the employee of this and allow them to make representations should they disagree.

If the employee has not shown competence in the position at the end of the probation period, the employer may resort to dismissal. A decision taken at the end of the probationary period not to appoint an employee also amounts to dismissal. However, the termination of employment must be done in line with the legislation, and the employer must have a fair and valid reason.

This means that the employer must clearly state which requirements the employee failed to meet and what actions were taken to assist the employee in meeting these requirements. The employee must also be offered the opportunity to make representations.

As the probation period is intended to measure job skills, it cannot be used to dismiss employees on the grounds of misconduct or other arbitrary reasons such as not fitting in with company culture.

Employers are beginning to be more flexible in hiring new talent, with a recent study suggesting that as much as 40% of companies have eased their job requirements in order to fill vacant roles.

The study found that human resource managers are increasingly making an effort to widen their candidate pools by giving leeway when it comes to a candidate's previous experience. 

As much as 78% of companies surveyed said they would consider applicants with transferable skills that could lend to trainability in the new job rather than them having to fit the job description perfectly.

A second survey supported these findings, 84% of human resources managers said their company would hire someone whose skills don’t exactly match the job description but can be developed through training. 

This clearly plays out in hiring, with almost two-thirds of candidates expressing that they believed they were offered a job they felt underqualified for.

Sources:

LWO | SERR | Cliff Dekker Hofmeyr | CNBC | Labour Guide | PR News Wire | Recruit My Mom

Find out how you can get involved in the next edition of Public Sector Leaders