I really don’t understand what her legal claim was here. She refused to sign the contract without the questions being answered so why would she think she was entitled to the job?
Name sounds familiar for some reason
This sounds like.
– She was offered job based on standard employment contract
– She didn’t like the standard contract and questioned it.
– The company didn’t have the time to engage to the level she wanted & weren’t willing to amend their standard contract just for her so they just revoked the offer.
– Nothing had been signed, so she never lost a job that she didn’t have.
– Because she chose to turn down a different offer before she had this confirmed position, she wants compensation.
The terms might be shitty, but as long as they’re legal, there’s a non-story here.
She definitely doesn’t deserve any compensation.
The contract sounds like it could be tightened up but sounds like they dodged a bullet there by withdrawing the offer (which they are perfectly entitled to do).
They made an offer, she didn’t agree to the offer. Next!
>She was “never an employee”, he wrote, and therefore she had no legal standing to bring her claim and he had no jurisdiction to hear it.
Absolute chancer gets caught in 4k. Surprised that the WRC even listened to her complaint in the first place really since it’s fairly open and shut.
It was her first ever salaried job, and she blew it up. This position is a pretty basic bilingual customer service type job. They hire ~100 of these roles per week in Ireland. There’s huge scope to move up in ranks and move around diagonally there if you have the right attitude and competence. It’s a fun place, easy to work for, pay is good.
This person had an unfortunate combination of over confidence and inexperience and challenged standard contract terms. Every big tech company has basically the same contract. She also lost out on significant stock gains since March 21. They clearly dodged a bullet.
Source: I work there too.
The terms she didn’t like do seem a bit odd.
From both sides.
If they expect her to use company email on a personal phone (which is unusual, so not sure they actually do) and as part of that provide the usual software that creates a work profile *then* the split happens at profile level, the work Gmail app is separate from the personal etc.
So, it’s shitty if they don’t provide work phones but asking them to clarify at an interview level how this works is a bit silly.
The copyright thing basically means if she robbed an idea from a client the company aren’t involved. No?
She is right that if its a six day working week and it’s not clearly stated in the lead up that it is a bit shitty. Instead though I’d imagine it’s five day week with potential overtime needed (fairly common, if you don’t like how it plays out – find a new job).
It would be rare to be part of the pension and health are schemes in a probationary period, I’d imagine that is stated in the contract or in the handbook. It would be fair to request the handbook and it probably should have been sent.
All in all, she took things out of context in a contract and was probably a bit over zealous in requesting things to be defined.
Seeing as she wasn’t yet an employee, she’s no real claim here, although I do think not hiring someone for questioning the contract is bogey. Not illegal, but bogey.
And I mean she’s hardly a lawyer, it’s seems reasonable to want clarification on a few things before you sign an agreement.
As a very cynical person, it sounds like TikTok want the role filled by the type of person who wouldn’t question anything. Someone they can take advantage of, have them overworked, contactable every hour of the day, and then say “well it’s in your contract, and you signed it!”
10 comments
It sounds like a shit set of terms to be honest
I really don’t understand what her legal claim was here. She refused to sign the contract without the questions being answered so why would she think she was entitled to the job?
Name sounds familiar for some reason
This sounds like.
– She was offered job based on standard employment contract
– She didn’t like the standard contract and questioned it.
– The company didn’t have the time to engage to the level she wanted & weren’t willing to amend their standard contract just for her so they just revoked the offer.
– Nothing had been signed, so she never lost a job that she didn’t have.
– Because she chose to turn down a different offer before she had this confirmed position, she wants compensation.
The terms might be shitty, but as long as they’re legal, there’s a non-story here.
She definitely doesn’t deserve any compensation.
The contract sounds like it could be tightened up but sounds like they dodged a bullet there by withdrawing the offer (which they are perfectly entitled to do).
They made an offer, she didn’t agree to the offer. Next!
>She was “never an employee”, he wrote, and therefore she had no legal standing to bring her claim and he had no jurisdiction to hear it.
Absolute chancer gets caught in 4k. Surprised that the WRC even listened to her complaint in the first place really since it’s fairly open and shut.
It was her first ever salaried job, and she blew it up. This position is a pretty basic bilingual customer service type job. They hire ~100 of these roles per week in Ireland. There’s huge scope to move up in ranks and move around diagonally there if you have the right attitude and competence. It’s a fun place, easy to work for, pay is good.
This person had an unfortunate combination of over confidence and inexperience and challenged standard contract terms. Every big tech company has basically the same contract. She also lost out on significant stock gains since March 21. They clearly dodged a bullet.
Source: I work there too.
The terms she didn’t like do seem a bit odd.
From both sides.
If they expect her to use company email on a personal phone (which is unusual, so not sure they actually do) and as part of that provide the usual software that creates a work profile *then* the split happens at profile level, the work Gmail app is separate from the personal etc.
So, it’s shitty if they don’t provide work phones but asking them to clarify at an interview level how this works is a bit silly.
The copyright thing basically means if she robbed an idea from a client the company aren’t involved. No?
She is right that if its a six day working week and it’s not clearly stated in the lead up that it is a bit shitty. Instead though I’d imagine it’s five day week with potential overtime needed (fairly common, if you don’t like how it plays out – find a new job).
It would be rare to be part of the pension and health are schemes in a probationary period, I’d imagine that is stated in the contract or in the handbook. It would be fair to request the handbook and it probably should have been sent.
All in all, she took things out of context in a contract and was probably a bit over zealous in requesting things to be defined.
Seeing as she wasn’t yet an employee, she’s no real claim here, although I do think not hiring someone for questioning the contract is bogey. Not illegal, but bogey.
And I mean she’s hardly a lawyer, it’s seems reasonable to want clarification on a few things before you sign an agreement.
As a very cynical person, it sounds like TikTok want the role filled by the type of person who wouldn’t question anything. Someone they can take advantage of, have them overworked, contactable every hour of the day, and then say “well it’s in your contract, and you signed it!”