Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

An Employer

Representatives

  Self- Represented

Shaun Boylan BL instructed by Thomas Carroll MW Keller & Son

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00002979

09/08/2024

The Worker is claiming that he was dismissed in an unfair manner. There is no dispute regarding the background facts which are as follows:

 A sales representative position for the Employer was advertised. The Worker was interviewed in June 2024 by Mr A (Managing Director) and Mr B (Salesman), son of Mr A in the family business. On 2 July 2024, after a fallout with Mr B , Mr A  decided not to proceed with the hire and instructed Mr B accordingly. Despite this, on 3 July 2024, Mr B issued an employment contract to the Worker. The Worker turned to commence work on 22 July 2024. He was told by Mr A that he should not have been hired by Mr B. Mr A drafted an agreement for  €2,500,as compensation for any inconvenience caused by Mr B’s actions. The Worker  accepted the payment and cashed the cheque.

The Worker is claiming he signed under duress. He submits that he gave up his previous job and suffered a financial  loss of €4,711 as well as extreme hurt as a  consequence of the happening. He is also claiming a breach of contract.

The Employer  argues that the there was no duress involved, the Worker signed the settlement agreement  voluntarily and subsequently cashed the cheque. Furthermore, The Employer  argues that it never actually hired the Worker, as Mr B  was not authorised to do so. It asserts that the Worker's claim relates to breach of contract, which is outside the jurisdiction of the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC).

The Worker submits that the Employer unfairly dismissed him  on the day employment was set to commence (22 July 2024) and coerced the complainant into signing an inadequate €2,500 settlement agreement under duress. The Worker  resigned from prior employment based on a firm job offer from the Employer. Despite assurances that the start date was unchanged, the offer was withdrawn on the day employment was to begin.

The Worker asserts that the settlement agreement was signed under pressure on the same day the job was withdrawn, without an opportunity for legal advice. The Worker maintains that  contract law holds that agreements made under duress are invalid, as free consent was not present. The €2,500 settlement did not cover the monetary loss of €4,711 in wages during the unemployment period from July 22 to September 10, 2024. The complainant also faced significant financial hardship, including reliance on credit, which caused emotional distress. This was exacerbated by the fact that he was in the process of naturalisation to become an Irish citizen and had no social welfare supports to rely upon.

The Worker asserts that the Employer failed to provide notice, explanation, or justification for the job offer withdrawal. The settlement process was rushed, lacking transparency and fairness leading to unfair treatment by the Employer. The Worker  seeks to nullify the settlement agreement and requests compensation for €4,711 in lost wages, plus additional compensation for financial strain and emotional distress.

Mr A  remained unaware of the contract until 16  July 2024, when he received an email from Mr B   stating the Worker  would start on 22 July  2024. The Employer  claims it did not actively prepare for the Worker’s employment and maintains that Mr B  acted without company authorisation. All of this happened during a dispute in the family company  between Mr A and Mr B. Mr B subsequently left the company. Mr A  denies any involvement or facilitation of Mr B’s actions.

The Employer submits Mr A  originally offered the Worker €2,000 which he then increased to €2,500 and this was accepted by the Worker. This was offered and accepted for any inconvenience caused by the actions of Mr B. However, it was not offered as any acknowledgment of wrongdoing on the part of the Employer. The sum offered was accepted by the Worker for any issues arising.

The Employer does not accept the allegation of duress. The Worker of his own volition signed the document and accepted the sum offered. In conjunction with this, the Worker subsequently cashed the cheque confirming his acceptance. The Employer submits  that if the Worker had,  at the time of signing felt under duress, such duress would no longer have been operative by the time of lodging the cheque. It was then open to him to repudiate the offer, which he did not.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties. The Employer raised a preliminary issue regarding my jurisdiction in the case on the basis that the Worker was never in receipt of a valid contract of employment and therefore was not entitled to take a case under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. I find that there was an offer, acceptance, and consideration (the Worker acted to his detriment by giving up his previous employment) in a process overseen by Mr B who, at the material time functioned as an agent for the Employer. Therefore, I find that the Worker possessed a valid contract of employment on 22 July 2024 when he turned up at what was his place of employment. The familial dispute within the company was an unfortunate happening which had profound consequences for the Worker in that he was effectively dismissed on his first  day by Mr A. The “settlement” agreement reflected what I believe was an acknowledgement of the unfairness of the situation by Mr A. The wording was as follows: , I XXXX accept the sum of €2500 as full and final settlement of any outstanding entitlements that l may have against YYYY for failed employment. The obvious  hurried nature of the arrangement and the lack of informed consent devoid of any opportunity being afforded to the Worker to seek external legal advice, nullifies this as a valid agreement. The Employer argues that the fact  the Worker cashed the cheque after a period, negates any insinuation of duress. Whilst I do not believe that there was  serious  duress as ordinarily defined, the settlement agreement as drafted, and in the hurried  circumstances described, suggests to me that the Worker’s ability to make a voluntary and informed decision was diminished. Furthermore, I do not accept that the subsequent cashing of the cheque suggested that the Worker accepted the arrangement. He gave a convincing account of extreme financial hardship  which led to such an act. An example would be where the acceptance of a redundancy payment does not in itself debar an employee from further pursuing an unfair dismissal claim on the grounds of unfair selection for redundancy. Having taken account of the foregoing, I find the Worker was treated unfairly by the Employer.

Industrial Relations Act 1969. Dismissal. Unfair Treatment. Compromise Agreement. Duress. Contract of Employment