Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95719 Case Number: AD9624 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: THE FITZGERALD GROUP - and - A WORKER |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. BC268/95.
Recommendation:
The Court would be of the view that the Company involved in this
case should have made a better effort to contact the claimant to
inform him of their decision not to go ahead with his employment.
Also, it would have been more appropriate for the employer to have
concluded his investigations as to the suitability of the applicant
for employment before offering a position (even if it was
conditional).
However, the Court agrees with the Rights Commissioner's findings
that, as satisfactory clearance with regard to references was not
forthcoming from previous employers, the offer made was null and
void.
The Court, accordingly, upholds the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation and rejects the appeal.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95719 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD2496
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: THE FITZGERALD GROUP
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No.
BC268/95.
BACKGROUND:
The worker attended an interview at the Poitin Stil public house on
11th May, 1995, for the position of a senior barman. The Poitin
Stil is part of the Fitzgerald Group. The worker was interviewed
by the Manager of the Poitin Stil who informed him that he could
offer him the position if the worker's references were suitable.
The worker at the time was employed by the Clock Tower public
house.
The worker claims that on Friday 12th, he rang the Manager who
confirmed his employment and told the worker that he could commence
on Saturday 20th May, 1995. The Company denies that this happened.
The worker attended the Poitin Stil on 20th May, but was told by
the Manager that he could not start work because of reports that
the Manager had received. The report was from a security company
used by the Company when it wanted to check on staff applying for
work.
The worker attended a meeting with the union MANDATE on 23rd May,
1995. He claims that the union contacted the Company's accountant
who denied that either he or the Company had received any reports
or reference regarding the worker. The dispute was referred to the
Rights Commissioner and a hearing took place on 2nd November, 1995.
The worker is claiming that he was unfairly dismissed on 20th May,
1995. The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation is as follows:-
"Like the above, I must hold that the claim must fail and
I recommend accordingly".
At the hearing, the worker claims that the Company's accountant
stated that it was he who had received the references about the
worker and instructed the Manager not to employ the worker.
The worker appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation to the
Labour Court on 19th December, 1995, in accordance with Section
13(9), Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took
place on 31st January, 1996.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker gave up his employment with the Clock Tower
public house as a result of the Company's manager
offering him the job in the Poitin Stil.
2. The worker had been previously employed by the Fitzgerald
Group in 1993 and was given a good reference. He had no
problems with any of his former employers.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was not told by the Manager that he had
secured the job and that he was to report for work on
20th May, 1995. He was told that, subject to approval
from head office, he would be offered the job. Following
the report from the security company, which indicated
that the worker would not be suitable, the Company tried
to contact the worker at the Clock Tower, but was unable
to do so. When the worker arrived at the Poitin Stil on
the 20th May, without having the job confirmed, the
Manager explained that he was not in a position to offer
him the job.
DECISION:
The Court would be of the view that the Company involved in this
case should have made a better effort to contact the claimant to
inform him of their decision not to go ahead with his employment.
Also, it would have been more appropriate for the employer to have
concluded his investigations as to the suitability of the applicant
for employment before offering a position (even if it was
conditional).
However, the Court agrees with the Rights Commissioner's findings
that, as satisfactory clearance with regard to references was not
forthcoming from previous employers, the offer made was null and
void.
The Court, accordingly, upholds the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation and rejects the appeal.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
19th March, 1996 -------------
C O'N/U.S. Deputy Chairman