Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Popescu  Daniel Constantin

Baker Finn Recruitment

Representatives

Self-represented

Self-represented/Internal

Act

Complaint 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-00069427-001

20/02/2025

The Complainant applied for a job, which was advertised on LinkedIn, by the Respondent company, which is a recruitment agent. He has taken this case because he objects to what he considers to be a lack of communication/feedback subsequent to him attending interview with the potential employer.

The Complainant clarified, at the hearing, that he was never an employee of the Respondent company in this case.

The Complainant’s complaints are denied by the Respondent. It submits that he was never an employee and therefore has no case under the legislation under which he has filed a complaint – that legislation pertains to the terms of employment of employees, whereas he was a candidate for interview with a client company of the Respondent (which is a recruitment agent).

It further submits that it behaved reasonably at all times, and was in fact, very responsive to the Complainant, reverting to him within one hour of his request for feedback on 11/10/2024, when he emailed the MD directly; and that occurred within one (1) month of his interview having taken place, which is not an unusual timeline, in any event. It further explained that the company it was hiring for (its client) did not provide specific post-interview feedback.

As per the Complainant’s complaint form:-

‘Back at the start of September 2024, I was contacted about a potential job by a recruitment company – Baker Finn – at a plant in Cork [name redacted]. Everything was done quite quickly and after I had the actual interview with the [potential employer] representatives (as you can see from the attachments of my correspondence with Baker Finn), I received absolutely no feedback from Baker Finn for more than a month.

The interview went very well from my perspective and the role was called Computerised Systems Validation Quality Assurance Lead. It’s similar with what I was doing in Ireland for the past 10 years for other pharma and biotech companies (see the attached CV).

On 11th October 2024, I contacted [another] of Baker Finn’s managers to see if he had any updates.’

The Complainant alleges that the effect of this was that he was shut out of applying for other jobs for a six (6) week period while awaiting the outcome of this job application.

At the hearing, the Complainant represented himself. He took the affirmation and gave evidence on his own behalf.

He explained that he saw a job on LinkedIn, and contacted the Respondent (which is a recruitment agent) in respect of it on 3/9/2024. The interview occurred on 12/9/2024. The recruiter he had been dealing with was leaving the Respondent company on 13/9/2024.

He said that he was phoning and trying to find out information for several weeks.

On 7/10/24, he enquired of the Respondent whether they knew anything – yes or no. He said that he received no reply.

The fact that the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 applies to employees only was put to the Complainant. He confirmed: ‘I was never hired by Baker Finn.’ He said that he had ticked the box on the complaint form for the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 because ‘it was the best one that fitted.’

The Respondent company denies the Complainant’s claims and submits that he was never an employee of the Respondent company, and that the applicable legislation (Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 applies to employees. It explained that it is a recruitment agent which was sourcing candidates for interview for client companies, and that it is in that context only, that the Complainant interacted with the Respondent – he applied for a job it advertised and he was put forward for an interview on 12/09/2024, with a client company.

The Respondent submitted that it did respond appropriately to the request for feedback. In fact, it responded within one (1) hour, by telephoning the Complainant. It further explained that the company which was hiring had not provided specific post-interview feedback. It submitted that it was acting in its role as an intermediary and said that it was incorrect that the Complainant had received no response. The Respondent submitted that there is a record of telephone call of seven (7) minutes duration on 11/10/2024.

Mr. Barry Delaney, MD of the Respondent company gave evidence on behalf of the Respondent. He outlined that he was emailed directly on 11/10/2024 by the Complainant, and that within about an hour of that, he rang the Complainant (phone records submitted). He explained that the client company had not specifically given feedback. He explained that having spoken to the Complainant, the Complainant was not upset or unhappy on the call. There was no further communication from the Complainant. He then filed his WRC complaint.

It was put to the witness by the Complainant, that if the Complainant had not emailed him, he would not have been contacted by the Respondent company. The Complainant queried when it would be typical to get a response. The witness said that it was generally within about a month of someone’s interview, and said that that actually had been the case in this instance too. The Complainant attended at interview on 12/09/2024 and received the phone call from Mr. Delaney on 11/10/2024. He was asked when he had received feedback, in this instance, and he said it was within a day or two of having spoken to the Complainant (‘a day or a couple of days before that’). He explained that he had not received specific feedback from the client company but that he was made aware that someone else had got the job.

I find that the Complainant was never an employee of the Respondent company, within the meaning of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994, the definitions of the relevant terms (contract of employment, employer and employee) are set out, as follows:-

“contract of employment” means-

(a) a contract of service or apprenticeship, and

(b) any other contract whereby an individual agrees with another person, who is carrying on the business of an employment agency within the meaning of the Employment Agency Act, 1971, and is acting in the course of that business, to do or perform personally any work or service for a third person (whether or not the third person is a party to the contract), whether the contract is express or implied and if express, whether it is oral or in writing;

“employee” means a person who has entered into or works under (or, where the employment has ceased, entered into, or worked under) a contract of employment and references, in relation to an employer, to an employee shall be construed as references, in relation to an employer, to an employee shall be construed as references to an employee employed by that employer; and for the purposes of the Act, a person holding office under, or in the service of, the State (including a member of the Garda Síochána or the Defence Forces) or otherwise as a civil servant, within the meaning of the Civil Service Regulation Act, 1956, shall be deemed to be an employee employed by the State or Government, as the case may be, and an officer or servant of a local authority for the purposes of the Local Government Act, 1941, a harbour authority, a health board or a vocational education committee shall be deemed to be an employee employed by the authority, board or committee, as the case may be;

“employer”, in relation to an employee, means the person with whom the employee has entered into or for whom the employee works under (or, where the employment has ceased, entered into or worked under) a contract of employment subject to the qualification that the person who under a contract of employment referred to in paragraph (b) of the definition of “contract of employment” is liable to pay the wages of the individual concerned in respect of the work or service concerned shall be deemed to be the individual’s employer;

I find that as the Complainant was never an employee of the Respondent company, he does not come within the terms of the legislation under which he filed his complaint, and I therefore find that the Respondent has no case to answer, in respect of the Complainant’s claims.

I further accept that the recruitment agency was responsive to the candidate for interview, as outlined, in its evidence.

I find for the Respondent.

Terms of Employment; employee status;