ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference:  ADJ-00055686

Parties:

Complaint:

Date of Adjudication Hearing:  10/06/2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Gaye Cunningham

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015   and/or Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint. The matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

Background:

The Complainant’s contract of employment was rescinded after she did not secure a Visa in time to report for work on 2 December 2024.  She contended that she advised the Respondent of her pregnancy earlier in the year and that had an effect on her employment offer being revoked.  She contends that she was unfairly dismissed, her contract was revoked, and she was treated unfairly by the Respondent in their dealings with her.  The Respondent contended that as she was not an employee, she could not avail of the remedies provided in the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant was represented by her uncle at the hearing.  She also gave a written submission summarised as follows in her own words:

I submit the following as a formal written explanation of my case.

My grievance primarily concerns the unjust and unfair revocation of a valid employment contract by an Irish employer, despite my consistent efforts to comply with all requirements. The revocation was not only unreasonable and procedurally flawed, but it also caused significant financial loss, emotional distress, and professional disruption.

Summary of Key Points:

Why This Revocation Was Unfair

1. Employer’s Inexperience and Poor Process Management From the beginning, the employer’s representative openly admitted he was unfamiliar with the process of hiring a General Practitioner (GP) from overseas. Due to this inexperience:

the hiring process was poorly handled,

I received inconsistent or unclear guidance, 

Delay in the submission Work Permit application which was the underlying cause of this dispute

2. Contract Terms & Timeline

I was offered a second formal employment contract on 8 May 2024 with an agreed joining date of 2 December 2024, which I signed on 9 May 2024. 

I immediately followed up regarding the work permit, but I was told it would be processed “next month”. 

The employer delayed submission of the employment permit until 18 July 2024, over two months later.

3. Permit Approved, Pregnancy Disclosed Honestly

The employment permit was approved on 20 August 2024. 

I had informed the employer earlier of my pregnancy, and on 26 August 2024, I gave birth to a baby boy. I kept the employer fully informed.

4. Visa Process: Timely Action Despite Medical Recovery

In spite of recovering from childbirth and preparing the requisite legal and travel documents such as Passport, Birth Certificate etc. for the newly born I secured the earliest available appointment at VFS (Visa Facilitation Services) for 14 October 2024.

I submitted my visa application and paid the full fee of €664.80, and immediately informed the employer.

5. Employer Knew Visa Timelines Were Out of My Control

I clarified to the employer that Irish visa processing generally takes between 4–12 weeks, and thus my joining date could not be confirmed until the visa was granted. 

Nevertheless, the employer pressed for a fixed joining date and showed unwillingness to accommodate these reasonable delays.

6. Resignation from My Previous Job

Based on the confirmed employment contract, I resigned from my previous job.

7. Employer Refused to Extend Joining Date

Despite knowing that visa timelines were beyond my control, the employer refused to grant any extension. 

On 3 December 2024, one day after the agreed joining date, they revoked the contract, statng that I had not joined even though my visa was still under processing and I had no legal way to enter Ireland without it.

Impact of Unfair Revocation

This unjust revocation had a devastating impact on my life:

• I had prepared fully to relocate:

o I gave notice to my landlord.

o Packed my household belongings.

o Resigned from my job.

• I paid €560 to the Irish Medical Council (IMC) for registration, which was essential for GP employment.
• I suffered extreme emotional distress, especially as I was a new mother recovering from childbirth. · My ability to care for my newborn child was compromised due to prolonged mental stress and financial instability.
• I have not been able to secure employment since, and I remain under serious financial pressure as a direct consequence of this situation.

Why the Employer's Decision Was Unjustified

• The delay in processing was due to:

o Employer's own delay in permit application, and

o The natural pace of Irish visa processing, not negligence on my part.

• I took every possible step to fulfil the contract in good faith, despite personal and logistical difficulties.
• The employer showed No flexibility during the visa process, despite being aware of my proactive efforts and personal circumstances.

Conclusion

I respectfully request that this case not be dismissed based solely on category labels such as "Unfair Dismissal", but that it be evaluated for what it truly is: a clear case of unfair revocation and breach of contract, handled with a lack of care, professionalism, and empathy by the employer. I acted responsibly, communicated transparently, and complied with all requirements under the signed contract. The consequences of this employer's failure have fallen entirely upon me and my family. Request for Redress and Compensation

In light of the circumstances outlined and the significant personal and financial loss I have suffered as a direct result of the employer's unfair revocation of a signed employment contract, I respectfully request that the Workplace Relations Commission consider compensation equivalent to one year of the gross salary that was offered in the contract. The offered contract provided for an annual salary of €100000, and I had fully committed myself to this opportunity in good faith. I left secure employment, paid mandatory registration and visa-related fees of over €1,200, resigned from my job, gave up my accommodation, and prepared for a permanent international relocation with a newborn child all based on the mutual understanding that I had a valid, enforceable contract of employment. The last-minute revocation of that contract despite no fault or negligence on my part resulted in substantial hardship:

emotional distress, long-term unemployment, disruption of my professional career, and major financial instability. I made every effort to honor the agreed terms and kept the employer informed at every stage, but they failed to offer reasonable support, flexibility, or even basic procedural fairness.

Therefore, I believe that a compensation of one year’s salary is proportionate and reasonable, both to reflect the losses I have incurred and to serve as a recognition of the serious consequences of the employer’s actions in this case.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent refutes this claim and will demonstrate the following: 

The Complainant did not commence employment with Western House Medical Centre and therefore the claim of Unfair Dismissal is without merit, the Respondent is of the opinion the Complainant does not meet the criteria for a case under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977-2015.

Under Section 1 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, a person must be an “employee” to invoke the act and bring a case of Unfair Dismissal– an employee is someone who has commenced employment. As the Complainant did not commence employment, the protections under the Act do not apply in this instance. The Complainant did not commence employment with Western House Medical Centre. The Respondent can confirm that whilst a Contract of Employment was issued with a start date, no work was carried out by the Complainant and renumeration was not exchanged at any point. The Complainant was due to commence employment with Western House Medical Centre on the 1st of August 2024 and on the 14th of March 2024 confirmed that she was pregnant and requested a change to her start date. The Respondent facilitated this request and offered the Complainant start dates in November, December of early 2025 to which the Complainant confirmed she would commence employment on the 2nd of December 2024. The Complainant engaged with the Respondent in relation to her start date and on the 22nd of November 2024 the Complainant requests a further extension to the start date to which the Respondent confirmed they could not extend the start date any further and the offer of employment will be withdrawn. The Respondent can confirm that they offered compensation of €600 in relation to the IMC Subs to which the Complainant rejected. This position is consistent with prior decisions of the WRC and the Labour Court, which have consistently held that where a role was offered but never commenced, the employment relationship was not formed. Accordingly, we request that the Adjudicator find this claim is not validly before the Workplace Relations Commission and therefore the Adjudication Office cannot accept jurisdiction to hear the case.

The Respondent relies on the case of Bertrand Lacour v Ubiqube Ireland Limited (ADJ-00029227) whereby the Adjudication Officer addressed the applicability of employment legislation particularly in relation to the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977-2015. In regards to the jurisdiction under the Unfair Dismissals Acts it must first be determined whether the Complainant is an employee under the meaning of the Unfair Dismissal Acts before it can be heard as an Unfair Dismissal Complaint. The deciding Adjudication Officer made reference to the case highlighting that the acceptance of a job offer or engagement in preliminary arrangements does not automatically confer to employee status. The nature of the contractual relationship and the commencement of actual work duties were considered to be critical factors in determining eligibility under employment legislation.

Findings and Conclusions:

At the core of this dispute is the fact that the Respondent revoked the employment contract which contained a ‘report to work’ date of 2 December 2024.  This contract was offered to the Complainant in May 2024.   The Complainant’s work permit was approved in August 2024.  The process of obtaining a visa was commenced by the Complainant in August 2024 and an appointment for processing set for 14 October 2024.    As the process could take up to 12 weeks, the Complainant set about trying to have the report to work date amended and the Respondent would not agree to this.  Having reviewed the timeline, I do not accept the Complainant’s position that the Respondent was fully at fault for delays. 

The applicable law

I note the request from the Complainant that “this case not be dismissed based solely on category labels such as "Unfair Dismissal", but that it be evaluated for what it truly is: a clear case of unfair revocation and breach of contract, handled with a lack of care, professionalism, and empathy by the employer”.

While I have sympathy for the situation in which the Complainant found herself, I can only ground my findings and decision on the applicable law.  It is not in my remit nor do I have authority to go outside the law under which the Complainant submitted her complaint.

Section 1 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 provides:

“dismissal”, in relation to an employee means –

• (a) The termination by his employer of the employee’s contract of employment with the employer, whether prior notice of the termination was or was not given to the employee..

“employee” means an individual who has entered into or works under (or, where the employment has ceased, worked under) a contract of employment …

“employer”, in relation to an employee, means the person by whom the employee is (or, in a case where the employment has ceased, was) employed under a contract of employment”

In this instant case, the Complainant submits that she was subjected to unfair revocation of contract.

The law under which the Complainant submitted her complaint is one in which the Complainant must have been employed. 

The Respondent states I must decline jurisdiction as the Complainant must have been employed by the Respondent.

I find that in order to be dismissed, a person must have been an employee of the Respondent.

At the point in time where the contract was revoked, the Complainant had carried out no work for the Respondent.  As she clearly did not work for the Respondent, I find her complaint of unfair dismissal is not well founded.

Decision:

Complaint reference: CA-00067800-001

Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act.

Based on the reasons and findings above, I have decided that the complaint is not well founded.

Dated: 05th August 2025. 

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Gaye Cunningham

Key Words: