FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : PERSONAL INJURIES ASSESSMENT BOARD - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Compensation
BACKGROUND:
2. This case relates to a Worker who applied for a job as an Assessor with the Personal Injury Assessment Board (P.I.A.B.) while she was still working with a named Insurance Company. She was successful in her application and progressed through the various stages of the competency-based interviews, however when she received a contract in draft form she was of the opinion that only two mere formalities remained to be completed, namely a medical check and two references from people of her own choice. Thus she felt she could safely tender her notice of one month with her current employer. Her medical examination was arranged, which she passed, but her nominated referee failed to give what was in P.I.A.B.'s view a satisfactory verbal reference to a member of it's H.R. staff. This was reported to the H.R. Manager who then made a follow-up phone call to the referee to clarify the situation and see if there were any mitigating circumstances which might change tenor of the initial conversation, however as a result a letter was later issued advising the Worker that her application would not now progress. The Worker withdrew her notice and continues to work with her former employer.
The matter was initially referred to the Rights Commissioner Service of the Labour Relations Commission by her Union but as P.I.A.B. objected to this investigation the claim was referred to the Labour Court on the 23rd February 2007 in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 14th June 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Shortly after her first interview the Worker was contacted by P.I.A.B.'s H.R. manager telling her the interview went exceptionally well and that another final interview would be arranged.
2. This interview was in front of The Board of Directors who make the final decision on recruitment, the following day the Union contends that an offer for the position of Assessor was made verbally on the telephone.
3. As the position offered a substantial increase in salary the Worker tendered her one month's notice of resignation to her employer. As a result of the rescinding of the offer the Worker has suffered a future financial loss, plus embarrassment and stress.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. At no time was an offer of employment made to the Worker by P.I.A.B. only news that she was to progress to the final stage of the recruitment process, that of the medical and reference check.
2. The Worker did not resign from her role with her employer and therefore did not suffer any financial loss, therefore no compensation should be paid to her.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the submissions made to it in this case. While the Court does not contest that any offer of a position is dependant on matters such as satisfactory references, it is the view of the Court that there is an onus on a prospective employer to be fair and thorough in its assessment of the views of referees and to adopt standards which are fair and reasonable.
In this case, the Court feels that the P.I.A.B. fell far short of such standards in its dealings with a prospective employee whom it had not only suggested should apply for a position but, on its own admission, found suitable for the position.
The Court considers that the P.I.A.B. failed to apply fair and equitable standards of natural justice in dealing with the interpretation of the referee's responses to questions raised and recommends that the P.I.A.B. pay compensation to the claimant in the amount of €15,000.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
25th June 2007______________________
J.F.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.