Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Seán O Bulmáin    

Hse (Health Service Executive)

Representatives

  Self-Represented

Valerie Madigan Employee Relations Manager

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00069096-001

06/02/2025

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

The complainant and a witness for the respondent undertook to give their evidence under affirmation.

The complainant submitted that his terms of employment were changed.

The complainant submitted that he applied for a position with the respondent as a Senior Paediatric Psychotherapist. He was accepted for the post pending documentation which he subsequently furnished to respondent. He was set to start a new job in September 2024 and handed in his notice, left his job left his accommodation and paid up-front for new accommodation in South Dublin. He went over to meet his perspective colleagues and was all set to star the job.

Shortly before his start date, He was contacted by the HR manager who decided to withdraw the job offer based on an opinion that one of the two references furnished was not a reference but was a statement of employment. This reference was from the hospital where the complainant had worked for over 20 years and according to the complainant is accepted as a glowing reference in many places. The complainant sought to clarify why one reference was not being accepted as a reference but rather a statement of employment but did not receive any response. There was no option to appeal the decision.

In his evidence the complainant noted that he had not started with the respondent for this position but had provided them with two full references for the position he applied for.

The respondent, in written submissions received in the days immediately prior to the hearing, noted that although the complainant worked for hospital that operates under section 38, that is it is funded by the Department of Health through the HSE, they refused to provide a reference for the complainant stating to the HSE that it is hospital policy to only provide a statement of employment to external agencies. That hospital clarified that a referee could not be sourced as old management had since moved on.

The respondent noted that accordingly it could not consider the reference provided by the complainant and the offer of employment was rescinded.

The respondent submitted that as the complainant was not an employee he could not avail of the protections of the Act when taking a complaint.

The complainant confirmed in oral evidence that he was not employed by the respondent. Section 2 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act deals with exclusions to the Act and states:

2.—(1) This Act, other than section 3(1A), shall not apply to employment in which the employee has been in the continuous service of the employer for less than 4 consecutive weeks.

As the complainant does not have the requisite service, I find that the act does not apply to him.

Having regard to all the written and oral evidence in relation to this complaint, my decision is that the complainant does not have the requisite to avail of the protections afforded by the Act.

Terms of Employment Information Act – Service requirement – complainant was not an employee – Act shall not apply