This week’s article examines employment law, addressing whether an employer can put a job offer on hold or request another interview after the offer has been accepted, particularly when the contract does not permit such actions. In doing this, attention is given to the 2019 Supreme Court case of Iyeke & 25 Ors v Petroleum Training Institute [2019] 2 NWLR (Pt. 1656) 217.
In that case, the appellant and 25 others initiated a lawsuit against the respondents at the Federal High Court in Benin City, seeking a declaration that they were employed by the respondents from December 2002. They also sought a declaration entitling them to monthly salaries and allowances from that date and requested an order for the respondents to pay these salaries and allowances from February 2003 onward.
According to the appellants, they were hired by the 1st respondent after interviews conducted in September 2002. However, three months later, they received a letter indicating that their employment was on hold and were instructed to appear before a committee. Following the committee meeting, they were directed to stay away from the 1st respondent until further notice. When the respondents failed to recall them, the appellants declared a trade dispute. A conciliator appointed by the Federal Minister of Employment concluded that there was a deadlock. Consequently, an order of mandamus required the respondents to refer the appellants’ complaints to the National Industrial Arbitration Panel or the National Industrial Court, which the respondents did not do.
In response to the appellants’ affidavit, the 1st respondent admitted offering employment but claimed the appellants refused to appear before the committee, thus abandoning the offer. The trial court ruled that the appellants’ employment had statutory protection, necessitating strict adherence to statutory procedures for termination, which the respondents had not followed. As a result, the court ordered the appellants to be reinstated and paid their salaries and allowances from March 2003. The 1st respondent complied, and the appellants resumed work in October 2005. However, their employment was terminated again in January 2006. Subsequent contempt proceedings led to the termination letters being set aside.
The 1st respondent then challenged the trial court’s judgment at the Court of Appeal, which overturned the decision, stating that there was no reasonable cause of action. Dissatisfied with the Court of Appeal’s decision, the appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.
In explaining how the Court of Appeal (Lower Court) handled the case, the Supreme Court clarified that putting something on hold means deciding not to proceed with it for the time being, but this was not justified in the context of this case. The appellants had attached their letters of appointment to their supporting affidavit, which included specific terms and conditions governing their rights and obligations. The Court of Appeal should have closely examined these terms to determine if the contract could be put on hold or postponed. Instead, the Court of Appeal overlooked these terms, particularly paragraph 12, which clearly stated, “Under no circumstances will the terms and conditions of this offer be renegotiated after your acceptance.”
The Court of Appeal noted that the Petroleum Training Institute (PIT) had not dismissed or terminated the appellants’ employment but had informed them that their appointments were on hold, leaving the appellants in limbo. However, since the letters of appointment explicitly prohibited renegotiation of the terms and conditions after acceptance, PIT could not alter the employment terms by putting the appointments on hold or asking the appellants to attend another interview. The Supreme Court concluded that the Court of Appeal made a serious error by not recognizing that asking the appellants to attend another interview constituted a renegotiation of the employment contract, thus deviating from the established terms. Thus, the Court of Appeal’s decision was unjustified, and the issue was resolved in favor of the appellants.
In conclusion, the principle that an employer cannot put employment on hold or call for a subsequent interview after an offer has been accepted, without contractual allowance for renegotiation, is justified by the fundamental legal concept of respecting binding agreements. Once both parties have agreed to the terms of employment, any unilateral attempt to alter these terms disregards the principle of honoring agreements, leading to instability and uncertainty for the employee.
Thank you for reading. See you next week.
THELEGALSTANDPOINT 