Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91628 Case Number: AD92128 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: CAMPBELLS MINI-COACHES - and - A WORKER |
Appeal by a worker against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. B.C. 173/91 regarding alleged unfair treatment.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made at the hearing the
Court takes the view the only reasonable inference to be drawn
from the employees letter of the 29th April, 1991 is that a
definite offer of a job had been made and was being withdrawn
because a letter of appointment had been requested. In the
circumstances the Court finds that the worker had on the strength
of a definite job offer acted reasonably in resigning from the
temporary post which she then held. The result of the subsequent
withdrawal of the offer was that she suffered a considerable loss
of earnings.
In these circumstances the Court is of the opinion that the Rights
Commissioners Recommendation should stand. The Court so decides.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91628 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD12892
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: CAMPBELLS MINI-COACHES
(REPRESENTED BY LIAM DAVIS, SOLICITOR)
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by a worker against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. B.C. 173/91 regarding alleged unfair treatment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker has been employed as a seasonal worker in the
tourism sector for the past few years. On completion of a F.A.S.
course she hoped to be able to obtain a full time position. In
March, 1991 while still on contract the worker applied for various
full time positions one of which was with the Company and for
which she was called for interview. By letter of the 4th April,
1991 the worker was informed by the Company that she had been
unsuccessful in her application as a more suitable candidate had
been chosen to fill the vacancy. The worker claims that on the
following week she received a telephone call from the Company
informing her that the selected candidate was not going to take up
the position and that subsequently the position was being offered
to her. The worker accepted the offer requesting the Company to
forward to her in writing, the terms of her employment. The
worker resigned from her temporary position and after a week
contacted the Company as she had not received any communication
from it. The worker was informed by the Company that it did not
give letters of appointment to its employees and she was
subsequently informed by letter dated 29th April, 1991 (copy
supplied to the Court) that it would be best to shelve the idea of
working with the Company. The Company denies that it ever offered
the worker a position and states that by the 29th April, 1991
another worker had been employed in the particular post.
The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation
and recommendation. A Rights Commissioner's hearing took place on
13th September, 1991 and the following recommendation issued on
17th October, 1991.
"Recommendation
I recommend in favour of the claimant and I further recommend
that Campbells Mini Coaches should pay to the worker the sum
of £3,750 in full and final settlement of all claims on that
Company consequential for its failure to honour its
undertaking concerning her employment".
(The worker was named in the Recommendation).
The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation was appealed to the
Labour Court by the worker in accordance with 36(2) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court investigation took
place on 10th January, 1992.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker is satisfied that she was offered a position
with the Company, an offer which was subsequently withdrawn by
letter of 29th April as an apparent result of her seeking to
have her conditions of employment put in writing.
3. It was on foot of the offer of full-time employment that
the worker resigned from her temporary position. As a result
of this action she had lost over £4,000 i.e. the equivalent of
6 months employment.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was one of the last 6 candidates to be
considered for the vacancy but at no time was she actually
offered a position within the Company.
2. By the time the letter of the 29th April was written the
position, as advertised, had already been filled. The letter
was not a denial of an offer of employment and was not
intended to be interpreted as such.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions made at the hearing the
Court takes the view the only reasonable inference to be drawn
from the employees letter of the 29th April, 1991 is that a
definite offer of a job had been made and was being withdrawn
because a letter of appointment had been requested. In the
circumstances the Court finds that the worker had on the strength
of a definite job offer acted reasonably in resigning from the
temporary post which she then held. The result of the subsequent
withdrawal of the offer was that she suffered a considerable loss
of earnings.
In these circumstances the Court is of the opinion that the Rights
Commissioners Recommendation should stand. The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_______________________
7th February, 1992. Deputy Chairman
A.NiS/J.C.