Recommendation

Industrial Relations Act 1969

Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00003946

Parties:

	Worker	Employer
Anonymised Parties	A person who entered into a contract with the employer	A bioscience recruitment company

Representatives

Self-represented

Peninsula Business Services Ireland

Dispute:

Act	Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969	IR - SC - 00003946	12/03/2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Catherine Byrne

Date of Hearing: 12/11/2025

Procedure:

In accordance with section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended), this dispute was assigned to me by the Director General. At a hearing on November 12th 2025, I made enquiries and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard and to put forward their positions in relation to the dispute. In accordance with section 8 of the Industrial Relations Act 1990, the parties are not named in this Recommendation, but are referred to as “the worker” and “the employer.”

The worker represented herself and the employer was represented by Mr Hugh Hegarty of Peninsula Business Services. Mr Hegarty was accompanied by Mr Paul Murphy of Peninsula and by two members of the employer’s HR department.

Background:

Among a range of consultancy offerings, the employer provides recruitment services to companies in the bioscience and pharmaceutical sectors. On February 4th 2025, the worker was offered a fixed-term role with a client, who I will refer to as “ABC.” The start date was March 3rd 2025 and the end date was February 2nd 2027. The salary for the role was €44,000, plus a shift allowance of 33.33% for working on the night shift

In the email to the worker on February 4th 2025 in which she was offered the role, a member of the employer’s HR team advised her that she was required to attend a pre-employment medical with ABC’s occupational health doctor. The HR manager also said that the offer was subject to satisfactory reference checks from the worker’s employers during the previous seven years.

On February 6th, the worker signed the contract, which was also signed by the employer. On February 12th, she provided her references and educational qualifications and two days later, she attended for a medical with the occupational health consultant. She was subsequently informed that she passed the medical.

From an email sent to the worker at 09.48 on February 20th, it seems that she had provided all the references, ID and educational checks that were required because a member of the HR team wrote to her to confirm that her final reference had been received and that they “will be in touch shortly regarding the next steps of your onboarding.” However, at 16.30 that day, the HR manager wrote to the worker and apologised for having to give her bad news. The HR manager said that her “onboarding with ABC wasn’t passed” and that the offer and contract of employment is “now deemed null and void.”

When the worker replied to the email and asked why her job offer was withdrawn, the HR manager said that ABC refused to give a reason. The worker replied and said that she signed a contract accepting the job offer. The HR manager explained that the contract was subject to “satisfactory clearance of all the reference and background checks and any legal formalities that need to be conducted before or during the initial days of the employment commencement.”

For the employer, Mr Hegarty argued that the worker does not come within the definition of a “worker” for the purpose of an investigation under s.13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. Mr Hegarty said that the job offer was withdrawn on February 20th 2025. As the worker did not in fact commence employment with the employer, he argued that her complaint is misconceived.

Conclusions:

For the purpose of bringing a dispute to the WRC under the Industrial Relations Act 1969, a “worker” is defined at s.23(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990:

(1) In the Industrial Relations Acts, 1946 to 1976, and this Part, “worker” means a member of the Garda Síochána referred to in subsection (1A) and] any person aged 15 years or more who has entered into or works under (or, where the employment has ceased, worked under) a contract with an employer, whether the contract be for manual labour, clerical work or otherwise, whether it be expressed or implied, oral or in writing, and whether it be a contract of service or of apprenticeship or a contract personally to execute any work or labour including, in particular, a psychiatric nurse employed by a health board and any person designated for the time being under subsection (3) but does not include -

Subsections (a), (b), (c) and (ca) are not relevant to the matter under consideration here.

From the worker’s perspective, she entered into a contract with the employer and she is seeking compensation because the offer with withdrawn shortly before she was due to commence in the job. She is aggrieved because, between February 4th 2025, when she was offered the job, and February 20th, when the offer was withdrawn, she declined requests to attend interviews for two other positions and she ended up being unemployed for three months. Understandably, she is upset because she doesn’t know why the offer was withdrawn, and if the reason is related to her reference checks or her medical, or to something else.

For the employer, the HR manager said they were shocked when the client decided not to go ahead with the recruitment of the worker and they did everything they could to get the client to provide an explanation. The HR manager explained that the contract was subject to satisfactory clearance of the reference and background checks.

I have considered Mr Hegarty’s assertion that the worker’s circumstances are not covered by the definition at s.23 of the 1990 Act. I disagree with that position, because it is evident that she is a person who “entered into a contract with an employer” despite the subsequent decision of the employer not to allow her to start in the job.

I note the employer’s position that the contract was subject to “satisfactory clearance of all the reference and background checks;” however, no information was submitted by the employer that indicates that the reference checks or the background checks were unsatisfactory, and this condition has not been met.

Having satisfied myself that the worker is entitled to bring a dispute to the WRC for investigation, I find that the withdrawal of her offer of employment was arbitrary and unfair and that it resulted in considerable financial hardship. I am mindful also that the failure to give her a reason for not proceeding with the offer had a negative effect on her confidence when applying for an alternative job. It is my view that the appropriate form of redress for these failures is compensation.

Recommendation:

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.

Due to the unfair treatment of the worker in this case, I recommend that the employer pays her compensation of €5,000, equivalent to approximately six weeks’ gross pay.

Dated: 12th December 2025