Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91329 Case Number: AD9184 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: MS ALICE WILSON (JOINED IN THIS ISSUE) - and - A WORKER |
An appeal against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. BC151/91 regarding the implementation of a job offer.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court
considers that the Rights Commissioners conclusions were correct
but that the amount of compensation should be £400.
The Court so decides.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Keogh Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91329 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD8491
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: MS ALICE WILSON (JOINED IN THIS ISSUE
WITH MR. PETER MARTIN INTERNATIONAL)
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. An appeal against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No.
BC151/91 regarding the implementation of a job offer.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The worker was working with a Company called "Media 2000"
where Ms. Wilson was her supervisor. The worker was
approached with the offer of a job by Ms. Wilson to work with
a company called "Peter Martin International". Peter Martin
is apparently Ms. Wilson's uncle. The firm had offices in
London and New York and was to establish an office at the
Financial Services Centre in Dublin.
2. The worker left her employment on 22nd March, 1991 to take
up duty with "Peter Martin International" on 25th March, 1991.
On that date the worker was informed by Ms. Wilson that the
commencement date of her employment was postponed for 2 weeks
until April 8th. The worker was promised £750 for the
inconvenience. The employment was postponed further on 7th
May, 1991 on a regular basis by Ms. Wilson, citing various
reasons, until the worker realised that there would be no job
for her.
3. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. A Rights Commissioner's
hearing took place on 10th June, 1991 and the Recommendation
as set out below was issued on 20th June, 1991. Ms. Wilson
did not attend the hearing.
"RECOMMENDATION
In the light of the above I am satisfied that Alice
Wilson did make an offer to the worker and that this
offer was accepted by the worker in total good faith.
The worker understood and was led to understand that
Alice Wilson was acting on behalf of her Uncle Peter
Martin, a proprietor of the Management Consultancy Firm,
Peter Martin International. In so far as Alice Wilson
represented herself to be acting on behalf of Peter
Martin International I deemed that Alice Wilson has a
primary responsibility in this matter.
In the light of the above I recommend that Alice Wilson
pay to the worker the sum of £2000 and this be accepted
by the worker in full and final settlement of all claims
against Alice Wilson acting on behalf of Peter Martin
International.
The worker was named in the Recommendation."
The Rights Commissioner's recommendation was appealed to the
Labour Court by both parties under Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court investigation
took place on 30th July, 1991.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker left her job with "Media 2,000" when she
received an offer of alternative employment, at a higher wage
with the firm "Peter Martin International". The worker was
ready to start the employment on 25th March, 1991, as agreed
with Ms. Wilson. At this stage the employment was postponed
for 2 weeks because, as stated by Ms. Wilson, of difficulties
in the transfer of money from London to Dublin. The worker at
this stage was promised £750 for her inconvenience and she was
to be re-imbursed for petrol expenses incurred in getting
forms to register the Company and also quotes from printers
etc..
2. Until 6th May, 1991 the worker was informed of further
postponements of her employment (details supplied). On 6th
May, 1991, she arrived to collect Ms. Wilson for work. She
received a note stating that Ms. Wilson had left for work with
Mr. Peter Martin and that he would contact her on 7th May,
1991, to explain to her the position. The worker never
received the phone call and was unable to contact Mr. Martin
(details supplied).
3. In the copy of Ms. Wilsons appeal to the Labour Court, she
stated inter alia that the worker had been dismissed from
"Media 2,000" for lack of performance. The worker refuted
this and stated that she was now working for "Media 2,000" on
a contract basis. The worker had been unemployed through no
fault of her own and for which Ms. Wilson was entirely
responsible. In her period of unemployment she was promised
£900 from Peter Martin International and paid out, in the same
period, £490 to a nanny and driver.
MS. WILSON'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. "Peter Martin International" considered setting up an
outlet in Dublin but following investigation decided against
it. In the worker's previous employment with "Media 2,000,"
Ms. Wilson was asked to dismiss her for lack of performance.
At that stage, Ms. Wilson was under the impression that there
would be employment with "Peter Martin International" and she
informed her of this. Ms. Wilson is not an employer and,
therefore, was not in a position to offer the worker
employment. As a result of the decision of the Company not to
open an outlet in Dublin, Ms. Wilson was unemployed for 2
months.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court
considers that the Rights Commissioners conclusions were correct
but that the amount of compensation should be £400.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
________________
30th September, 1991
J.F. / J.C. Chairman