Rescinded job offer after leaving old job

gabhan16

A friend of mine had left his job last Friday, which was the las day of his notice period. The new job had confirmed to him he had a place. He had called them and told them he as leaving a perm job to take up the new job, and the reassured him he could leave his old job no problem, the new job was there for him.

However, before he was due to start the new job they called and said the job offer was cancelled. They said the current employees had threatened strike action due to reduced hours over hiring new people.

He now has no job as a result, is there anything he can do?

ibarelycare

Did he sign a contract?

Tigger

gabhan16 wrote: »

A friend of mine had left his job last Friday, which was the las day of his notice period. The new job had confirmed to him he had a place. He had called them and told them he as leaving a perm job to take up the new job, and the reassured him he could leave his old job no problem, the new job was there for him.

However, before he was due to start the new job they called and said the job offer was cancelled. They said the current employees had threatened strike action due to reduced hours over hiring new people.

He now has no job as a result, is there anything he can do?

thats terrible
did he leave on good terms
were the new place even apologetic

gabhan16

ibarelycare wrote: »

Did he sign a contract?

Yes, a 6 month contract.

gabhan16

Tigger wrote: »

thats terrible
did he leave on good terms
were the new place even apologetic

Not sure how the phonemail went in terms of how apologetic they were but he has contacted his old job. His old sup said he would see what he could do but looks unlikely.

ibarelycare

gabhan16 wrote: »

Yes, a 6 month contract.

What does it say in his contract about notice period? It's unlikely that the employer has exceeded the minimum notice period set out in the Act for an employee who is there less than 13 weeks (by law they are entitled to no notice period), but it would be a good idea to check anyway. He might be entitled to some pay in lieu of notice if it's allowed for in his contract.

gabhan16

ibarelycare wrote: »

What does it say in his contract about notice period? It's unlikely that the employer has exceeded the minimum notice period set out in the Act for an employee who is there less than 13 weeks (by law they are entitled to no notice period), but it would be a good idea to check anyway. He might be entitled to some pay in lieu of notice if it's allowed for in his contract.

Thanks I'll ask him to check.

BreadnBuddha

gabhan16 wrote: »

....They said the current employees had threatened strike action due to reduced hours over hiring new people....

I imagine the current staff's threat of strike action is more to do with overtime disappearing if new staff are hired. That kind of thinking is very much the norm I'm afraid.

There should be protective legislation in place for people who find themselves the victim of this kind of bullspit to be awarded damages against the union who block their hiring. Despicable carry on altogether.

Unfortunately, there's little he can do about it but hope for understanding from his old employer (and I wouldn't be hopeful really), or ask for a written statement from the 'new employer' so he can go and sign on ASAP while he looks for another job.

sarah33murphy

Hi Gabhan,

My boyfriend is in exactly the same position and we have three children to look after and rent to pay. Apparently they invested 40 million to take on 140 people I cannot believe there are up to 140 people in this position and it did not make the news.

Do the people who threatened strike really believe this company will just let them get on with things? They are a global company, first chance they get they will move operations overseas after loosing 40 million investment and god knows how much in lost contracts. Well done SIPTU another victory...

I cannot believe that this has happened I wonder is it legal?

Mrs OBumble

Unfortunately it's legal, due to the fact that new employees are on probation - they can be let go for no reason and with no notice during the first 13 weeks.

Of all the horrible things about Irish employment law, I regard this is the worst.

All you can do is ask New-company to put their change of mind in writing, so you have something to show to welfare and so can sign on until you find a new job.

BrokenArrows

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Unfortunately it's legal, due to the fact that new employees are on probation - they can be let go for no reason and with no notice during the first 13 weeks.

Of all the horrible things about Irish employment law, I regard this is the worst.

All you can do is ask New-company to put their change of mind in writing, so you have something to show to welfare and so can sign on until you find a new job.

Maybe that would be the case with an open ended "permanent" job position. However the OP said it was a 6 month fixed contract. So i would expect a fixed term contract to be exactly that.

davo10

BrokenArrows wrote: »

Maybe that would be the case with an open ended "permanent" job position. However the OP said it was a 6 month fixed contract. So i would expect a fixed term contract to be exactly that.

Probationary periods can apply to fixed term contrasts just as they do to permanent ones provided of course that the duration of the probationary period is outlined in the contract. But regardless of that, the op's friend really wouldn't have many rights until the length of service exceeds one year.

BrokenArrows

davo10 wrote: »

Probationary periods can apply to fixed term contrasts just as they do to permanent ones provided of course that the duration of the probationary period is outlined in the contract. But regardless of that, the op's friend really wouldn't have many rights until the length of service exceeds one year.

Thats true if they started work. They can be let go with 1 weeks notice (assuming the contract doesnt state otherwise)

However rescinding the offer before work begins is a breach of the contract that both parties agreed to (Assuming they don't have some sneaky small print).

Its no longer an offer as soon as both parties have agreed to it. It is now a legal agreement which the employer has broken.

OP, Get your friend to read his contract in detail and answer these questions.
1. Was it a fixed term contract of 6 months?
2. Is there anything in the contract stating the conditions which employment can be terminated? If so what are they?
3. Is there anything in the contract stating the notice period of termination?

If it is a fixed term contract for 6 months then the contract must state the conditions for which it can be terminated early. If it doesn't have these conditions then the employee must be compensated for the full 6 months.

Worst case scenario the Employer will need to pay the statutory minimum notice period of 1 week.
Best case scenario the Employer will need to pay 6 months pay.

Everything depends on the contract.

Lux23

sarah33murphy wrote: »

Hi Gabhan,

My boyfriend is in exactly the same position and we have three children to look after and rent to pay. Apparently they invested 40 million to take on 140 people I cannot believe there are up to 140 people in this position and it did not make the news.

Do the people who threatened strike really believe this company will just let them get on with things? They are a global company, first chance they get they will move operations overseas after loosing 40 million investment and god knows how much in lost contracts. Well done SIPTU another victory...

I cannot believe that this has happened I wonder is it legal?

Is it in Dundalk? If so its hit the news just now.

davo10

BrokenArrows wrote: »

Thats true if they started work. They can be let go with 1 weeks notice (assuming the contract doesnt state otherwise)

However rescinding the offer before work begins is a breach of the contract that both parties agreed to (Assuming they don't have some sneaky small print).

Its no longer an offer as soon as both parties have agreed to it. It is now a legal agreement which the employer has broken.

OP, Get your friend to read his contract in detail and answer these questions.
1. Was it a fixed term contract of 6 months?
2. Is there anything in the contract stating the conditions which employment can be terminated? If so what are they?
3. Is there anything in the contract stating the notice period of termination?

If it is a fixed term contract for 6 months then the contract must state the conditions for which it can be terminated early. If it doesn't have these conditions then the employee must be compensated for the full 6 months.

Worst case scenario the Employer will need to pay the statutory minimum notice period of 1 week.
Best case scenario the Employer will need to pay 6 months pay.

Everything depends on the contract.

I think you are over stretching, there is no notice required for the first 13 weeks of employment unless otherwise stated in the contract but even if th contract said notice of one month, the op is not covered by the UDA and has no course for redress under employment law. You can of course sue for breach of contract but that would be in court rather than in EAT and would probably be cost prohibitive for the sake of 6 months salary.

BrokenArrows

davo10 wrote: »

I think you are over stretching, there is no notice required for the first 13 weeks of employment unless otherwise stated in the contract but even if th contract said notice of one month, the op is not covered by the UDA and has no course for redress under employment law. You can of course sue for breach of contract but that would be in court rather than in EAT and would probably be cost prohibitive for the sake of 6 months salary.

Ok maybe stretching a bit, but i have never seen an employment contract which didnt specify the notice period.

Chromosphere

It seems a little crazy that the contract is entirely one-sided then.
Surely if you commit to a 6-month contract, there should be some kind of penalties for breeching it.

I can't even walk away from a 12 month contract with a mobile phone provider, let alone one that impacts someone's livelihood this badly.

It's one thing being let go for failure to perform etc during a probation period. This is actually just dropping the position entirely and reneging on the contract.

davo10

Chromosphere wrote: »

It seems a little crazy that the contract is entirely one-sided then.
Surely if you commit to a 6-month contract, there should be some kind of penalties for breeching it.

I can't even walk away from a 12 month contract with a mobile phone provider, let alone one that impacts someone's livelihood this badly.

It's one thing being let go for failure to perform etc during a probation period. This is actually just dropping the position entirely and reneging on the contract.

That's the difference between consumer legislation and employment legislation.

LegacyUser

BreadnBuddha wrote: »

I imagine the current staff's threat of strike action is more to do with overtime disappearing if new staff are hired. That kind of thinking is very much the norm I'm afraid.

There should be protective legislation in place for people who find themselves the victim of this kind of bullspit to be awarded damages against the union who block their hiring. Despicable carry on altogether.

Unfortunately, there's little he can do about it but hope for understanding from his old employer (and I wouldn't be hopeful really), or ask for a written statement from the 'new employer' so he can go and sign on ASAP while he looks for another job.

I can tell you now,that the strike action had ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the loss of overtime or reduced hours.

Chromosphere

davo10 wrote: »

That's the difference between consumer legislation and employment legislation.

One actually gives you rights?

gabhan16

Just to update, luckily my friend was able to get his old job back. I can only feel for anyone who was not able to get their old jobs back in a similar predicament.

It's disgraceful that a company can change, on a whim, someone's life when an agreement has been signed.

Verbally promising security knowing they can backtrack with absolutely no consequences.

Lux23

davo10 wrote: »

That's the difference between consumer legislation and employment legislation.

Employment legislation needs an overhaul, it is madness that an employer can put someone into a situation like that with no penalty.

davo10

Lux23 wrote: »

Employment legislation needs an overhaul, it is madness that an employer can put someone into a situation like that with no penalty.

And that an employee can take up a position somewhere else at short notice. Penalties would have to apply to both parties so becareful what you wish for. Employees have a lot more rights than employers.

Mrs OBumble

davo10 wrote: »

Employees have a lot more rights than employers.

Not during probation they don't. Current employment law is very strongly weighted against people who change jobs for the first up to 12 months of their employment. 'Tis only after that when they get rights.

davo10

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Not during probation they don't. Current employment law is very strongly weighted against people who change jobs for the first up to 12 months of their employment. 'Tis only after that when they get rights.

True. But that is the reason for probation periods, to assess if the employee is good and of benefit. Employees are able to leave if they don't like the job, surely employers should be able to cut employees adrift if they don't work out? After one year both employees and employers have had enough time to know if the relationship works and employees quite rightly have improved rights.

Mrs OBumble

davo10 wrote: »

True. But that is the reason for probation periods, to assess if the employee is good and of benefit. Employees are able to leave if they don't like the job, surely employers should be able to cut employees adrift if they don't work out? After one year both employees and employers have had enough time to know if the relationship works and employees quite rightly have improved rights.

Which sounds great - until you meet the employers who routinely lay everyone off after 11 months. (In Galway, we even had a hotel which closed for a month every year just for that purpose.)

Maybe there are some higher-level jobs where it really does take a whole 12 months to assess if the person is right for the job. But really for most, it shouldn't take more than a month.

And the particular situation that the OP is about, where a person can be let go before they've even started and had a chance to prove themselves is just outrageous.

titan18

Not sure anything can be done in this case (most likely the one in Carrigtwohill). As for it being an employee vs employer's rights issue, if the current employees didn't have a fit and get their union to threaten strike action, the new employees would be starting, so blame them.

2RockMountain

titan18 wrote: »

Not sure anything can be done in this case (most likely the one in Carrigtwohill). As for it being an employee vs employer's rights issue, if the current employees didn't have a fit and get their union to threaten strike action, the new employees would be starting, so blame them.

We're just hearing one side of the story here, and employment matters are rarely that simple. Let's wait until we have the full facts before we rush to blame.

titan18

2RockMountain wrote: »

We're just hearing one side of the story here, and employment matters are rarely that simple. Let's wait until we have the full facts before we rush to blame.

Tbf, I'm assuming it's this

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/dozens-in-limbo-as-ge-healthcare-job-offers-pulled-at-last-minute-418008.html

and the employer has made a statement on why

adocholiday

Christ that's dreadful carry on by the union. Yet again the unions showing themselves up for the complete and utter parasites that they are. Sorry if that kind of sentiment is not appreciated in this forum but the unions in this country, SIPTU in particular, need to be seriously reigned in. These kind of self serving short sighted actions by unions and the stranglehold they have in some industries are surely damaging for the country and workers in the long run.

cml387

It's easy to jump on the union bashing bandwagon (and I'm no fan of them by the way) but there is probably more to this than is being said.

micks

adocholiday wrote: »

Christ that's dreadful carry on by the union. Yet again the unions showing themselves up for the complete and utter parasites that they are. Sorry if that kind of sentiment is not appreciated in this forum but the unions in this country, SIPTU in particular, need to be seriously reigned in. These kind of self serving short sighted actions by unions and the stranglehold they have in some industries are surely damaging for the country and workers in the long run.

Ridiculous statement without knowing all the facts

Article says the disagreement is over moving from 3 to 4 cycle shift pattern
so most likely moving from mon - fri shifts to 7 days a week 24/7

Thats a big change in work pattern

would you change your work pattern? if you work 9-5 would you change to shift work when asked? Or would you be self serving and short sighted
because you are unaccustomed and unable to work weekends/nights?

2RockMountain

titan18 wrote: »

Tbf, I'm assuming it's this

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/dozens-in-limbo-as-ge-healthcare-job-offers-pulled-at-last-minute-418008.html

and the employer has made a statement on why

adocholiday wrote: »

Christ that's dreadful carry on by the union. Yet again the unions showing themselves up for the complete and utter parasites that they are. Sorry if that kind of sentiment is not appreciated in this forum but the unions in this country, SIPTU in particular, need to be seriously reigned in. These kind of self serving short sighted actions by unions and the stranglehold they have in some industries are surely damaging for the country and workers in the long run.

Interesting to see the rush to demonise the union without actually hearing or understanding their side of things. There is certainly a bit of history at that site showing the management's unwillingness to even recognise the union.

http://www.siptu.ie/media/pressreleasearchive2001-2012/2011/fullstory_14930_en.html

It would be interesting to hear a current view from the union.

Jimbob1977

Why did the employer push ahead with new recruitment without finalising an agreement with the unions?

Sounds like the Garth Brooks concert... tickets sold & printed without a concert permit and the consent of local residents.

The company have behaved terribly.

jimmycrackcorm

Jimbob1977 wrote:

Why did the employer push ahead with new recruitment without finalising an agreement with the unions?

Why should they suit the union? If people don't like the changes they should change jobs.

Jimbob1977 wrote:

The company have behaved terribly.

The company could create jobs but the union is blocking them, for what reason? As usual the union is self serving.

You can be sure that had the company started from the outset with the proposed shift patterns that people would have been working them.

2RockMountain

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Why should they suit the union?

Here's a couple of reasons:
a) It is illegal to change terms & conditions of existing staff without agreement
b) When you don't, you end up screwing up your company's reputation and seriously messing up potential recruits

Stealthfins

micks wrote:

would you change your work pattern? if you work 9-5 would you change to shift work when asked? Or would you be self serving and short sighted because you are unaccustomed and unable to work weekends/nights?

I'd be definitely self serving and so called short sighted.

Come on who'd in their right mind prefer the shift work ?

9 to 5 is like gold dust these days.

Usually lick asses and workaholics capitulate,stubborn people like me stand up for what they believe in.

3DataModem

Stealthfins wrote: »

I'd be definitely self serving and so called short sighted.

Come on who'd in their right mind prefer the shift work ?

9 to 5 is like gold dust these days.

Usually lick asses and workaholics capitulate,stubborn people like me stand up for what they believe in.

"What they believe in" LOL

You mean "what suits them"