#Employment : Job offer accepted, then told hiring manager has left...

[jayloord]

Thanks for all the feedback on this.

 

I met with another manager in the company yesterday, who offered me the job (again). He explained that the previous manager had sent a mail indicating she would not be returning to work. I still think it's very unprofessional on her part not to have called me to let me know where she was at, after such a positive initial interview. Still, i guess she just didnt care any more.

[teaboy2]

well that's is good news, and i guess it confirms that you are now under contract for sure. And i agree it is nonprofessional and she should not have been interviewing if she was about to leave, though if the company were not aware then not a lot they can do about. other than rectify the situation, which they now clearly have done.

 

Good luck in your new job.

[elpulpo]

Your Forgetting something, my argument is based solely on if it is proven that the employment was offered and accepted. If so then standard terms of employment apply, and they can not withdraw an offer once an offer has been accepted, as once accepted they are in a legally binding contract from the point of acceptence. A contract exists, regardless of whether anything is in writing. Therefore once a job offer has been accepted, there is a contract in place. There is however a legal obligation to ensure each member of staff has a written statement of terms and conditions by the time they have completed eight weeks work with the employer.

 

As for claiming financial loss for breach of contract, well read this (it works both ways) - http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/Employees/EmploymentContractsAndConditions/DG_10027521

 

As for my mobile phone analogy - It is not erroneous at all it was meant purely as an example as to what can be claimed as a financial loss for breach of contract. Is the 6 months that the mobile company loses out on money, a financial loss? Yes it is, so they are entitled to apply those fees equal to those 6 months subscription fees, as a cancellation fee early cancellation regardless of what is in the terms of the contract.

 

I employ people myself, so i think i know what am talking about when it comes to this especially when i also have contracts with my own customers. Your argument is based on there being no proof that the offer was accepted which if such proof is not found, then yes you'd be correct as there would be no evidence of a contract being accepted and therefore no evidence a contract actually existed.

 

My argument though is based on him sending in a SAR and as such finding evidence that proves the offer was indeed accepted and a contract was therefore entered into - Which changes everything. Because from that point on, he is entitled to claim for financial detriment for any financial loss incurred as a result of the employers breach of contract. Once accepted you must invite them to a meeting and have a good reason for dismissing them within the first month, and sorry but saying the interviewing manager no longer works for the company is simply not good enough.

 

Claim for financial detriment applies to all forms of contracts when a breach occurs including employment contracts, i.e if the employee is in breach and the employer suffers a financial detriment, they can sue for damages, the same applies when the employer is in breach of contract and such breach results in the employee suffering a financial detriment. This is made clear in many breach of contract legal cases under contract law.

 

So basically if the OP can get the documents through a SAR and they provide proof that he did indeed accept the contract, then i am right. If however their is no prove that the contract was accepted then the OP hasn't a leg to stand on.

As I said, Teaboy, show me evidence. Case law.

[teaboy2]

Perhaps you didn't read the bit found under the link i provided where it clearly states under the legal action section the follow:-

 

"If you can't sort out the problem with your employer, you could decide to take legal action. Think carefully before taking any legal action against your employer. Ask yourself what you want to achieve and how much it will cost.

Remember that you will only get compensation (called 'damages') if you can prove real financial loss, for example, if your employer doesn't pay your wages - there's no compensation for distress or hurt feelings."

 

The use of not paying wages is just an example of financial loss as it is normally the most likely financial loss. But it is just an example of what a financial loss is, therefore any kind of financial loss suffered by an employee as a result of breach of contract or indeed any unlawful action by an employer is claimable as damages in a court of law.

 

So that being said i see no reason to provide case law when contract law is clear on such matter. However since the government website is not good enough for you, then here you are:

 

Ebbw Vale Steel Co -v- Tew [1935] 79 SJ 593 Employer sues employee for financial loss for leaving without giving proper notice - Employer won: The Case was decided on Contract Law not employment law, the same contract laws enable employees to sue employers for financial loss too. After all the law works both ways, it's not one law for one and a different law for others. Though admittedly most employee claims against the employer are settled via at ET, not in a court, making it difficult to find you a reference to any court case that is case law where the employee won damages for financial loss and those that do go to court are usually small claims or civil court and not go to high court.

 

Anyway, you of all people know the ET award damages for Financial loss in terms of compensation for loss of potential earnings, and/or any financial loss incurred by the employee as a result of the employers breach of contract.

 

Any party that incurs a loss, and/or detriment as the result of the other parties actions either in contract or not in a contract, the injured party under common law and/or contract law can sue the other party for damages to recuperate such losses and/or compensate for the detriment they incurred as a result of the other parties actions.

 

What you seem to be saying, is that when someone suffers a detriment and/or loss as a result of the other party to the contract being in breach, that they are not entitled to sue for damages. Sorry that doesn't make sense elpulpo.

 

Yes this is an employment contract, but it is still a contract. It doesn't matter what type of contract it is (hell it could even be a contract with the devil) the law is still the same, and that is if you suffer a detriment as a result of the other parties breach, you are entitled to damages and/compensation to recuperate your losses.

 

How about this Elpulpo - You show me case law where an employer was in breach of contract and the employee sued for detriment and/or loss, where the employee was not successful even though it was proven the employee had suffered a detriment/loss and when the Employer was found to be in breach.

 

My argument is solely based on the fact that once a contract is accepted in cannot be withdrawn (unless mutually) and if it is they most follow correct procedures for dismissal or termination of contract, and not say "sorry where not employing you after all", because 1 they are already in a contract - so 2 they have already employed them. So yes if the OP had not been given the job for a second time and was able to prove the offer was accepted and a contract was in place from the 1st time round, then yes he could claim for any detriment and/loss incurred as a result of the companies breach of contract (i.e withdrawal/unlawful termination)

 

Basically Elpulpo - What i am saying is that its ok to take on an employee and then let them go within the first month, so long as you follow the correct procedure and hold a private meeting with them explaining your decision and so long as your decision is reasonable. It can also be ended without notice by mutual consent. But what you can not do, is offer a contract and then withdraw it after it has been accepted, such withdrawal is unlawful termination of contract (putting you in breach of contract) and leaves you open to being sued for damages. why? well its simple - unless you have seen the employee work (and given them any training if needed within reason) and they still can not do the job correctly or to an acceptable standard - You can not just withdraw/terminate the contract. As its only after they have shown themselves to be incapable of doing the job correctly or to an acceptable standard after a reasonable amount of time (1-2 weeks in most cases, but sometimes less), can you then terminate the contract by following the correct procedure and having a meeting with them as stated above.

Edited April 21, 2011 by teaboy2
added last paragrapth

[Sidewinder]

An employee would only be able to claim damages where an unconditional offer had been made - ie it was a job offer which did not rely on say, receipt of satisfactory references (which would be almost unheard of), as this would mean that the principles of contract had not been fulfilled, even where the request for references was never made. Therefore, whether the agreement was verbal or written, if there was to be any request made for references and the recruiter left before even applying for references, then even though salary, hours and starting date may have been discussed and agreed, the contract would be void as all of the conditions had not been met. Offer and Acceptance are required, but if any conditions attached to the offer are not fulfilled for whatever reason then the contract is not formed.

 

Even where the offer is unconditional - and let's say that a business was prepared to tell a candidate that they had been successful and that there was no need to provide references, then yes, the employee would be in a position to claim damages, but these would be limited to the maximum period of notice which the employee would have received had the employment commenced and the dismissal occurred thereafter. This would normally be limited to a week, unless the offer was made on the basis of more.

 

In law, the new employer cannot be held responsible for the actions of the employee in resigning from their current position before all of the conditions of the new employment are fulfilled. That is solely the responsibility of the employee. The notion that one can sue for consequential damages in this situation is a common mistake, but sadly does not work.

[teaboy2]

Yes sidewinder

 

but in this case the offer appears to have been unconditional as from what the OP stated, he only had to provide the following which he did - "two copies of my passport, national insurance card, and bank card". Which says to me that their was no underlying conditions, which is enough for him to be entitled to sue them for loss of earnings (notice period as you said minimum 1 week in this case), though it would include loss of earnings he may have lost by turning down other work, so it is not just limited to notice periods as you can sue for damages for any form of financial loss and.or detriment caused by the breach of contract (so long as you have proof of such loss/detriment).

 

Also, an employee is a representative of the company, if at the time they have filled in the paperwork so to speak, and they then left after the job offer was accepted, then as they were the companies representative, then sorry, but yes the company is still in a legally binding contract. Only if the employee was not authorized to offer the job, can they claim they were not liable. Yes the company can not be held responsible for that employee leaving the company, but they can not use that as an excuse to breach the contract offered by said employee and accepted, prior to his/her leaving, when there was no conditions that needed to be satisfied, which seems to be the case in this thread

 

So when your an employee carries out work for a company which includes interviewing and offering employment to others on behalf of the company, such employee is legally acting on behalf of said company. Therefore the employee is not responsible for any contract disputes arising after he/she has left, especially when the new employee has provided all documents asked for, such as in this case. Which means the employee that left can not be held liable for a delay at the head office of processing those documents, not only that, there is no reason why the new employee could not start work even though such documents (which in this case are purely bank/tax and ID for which is likely only needed for records and to pay him) had not been processed.