This case concerned the interpretation of an express contractual clause. The complainant was a food delivery driver and resigned from his position due to the respondent selling the company vehicle.

The respondent claimed that the complainant was contractually obliged to provide his own personal vehicle to fulfil the deliveries when the company vehicle was not available. However, the wording of the clause relied on was ambiguous and imprecise, and appeared to apply only in exceptional circumstances.

The Court applied the contra proferentum rule in favour of the complainant. The court found that the complainant did not act unreasonably in terminating his employment as the respondent had unilaterally decided to sell the company vehicle without ensuring that the complainant could continue to fulfil his contract of employment.

"The Respondent must bear full responsibility for its unilateral decision to sell the company’s delivery vehicle without first making alternative arrangements to ensure that the Complainant was in a position to fulfil the terms of his contract in a lawful and safe manner. In all the circumstances, the Court finds that the Complainant was frustrated in the performance of his contractual duties by the aforementioned unilateral decision of the Respondent."

The Labour Court increased the compensation awarded by the Adjudication Officer to €10,000.
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/Cases/2016/October/UDD1626.html