Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Dawid  Burda

Nua Healthcare

Representatives

Self-Represented

Andrea Tancred, IBEC

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-00076260-001

12/10/2025

The Complainant stated that he was employed by the Respondent on 21 November 2022. He states that while employed with the Respondent, he attended an interview for a prospective position with another Named Company. The Complainant states that he was successful in the application process with the Named Company provided he obtained Garda vetting and a reference from the within Respondent. The Complainant states that on 26 July, 2025 he resigned from the Respondent company.

The Complainant states that he emailed the Respondent’s HR Department requesting a Statement of Employment to support his application for the prospective position with the Named Company. The Complainant states that he sent multiple emails requesting same but to no avail.

The Complainant states that the Respondent failed to provide the Statement of Employment and he did not receive same until approximately 40 days later with the result that he lost the job opportunity with the Named Company.

The Complainant submits that the Respondent is in breach of the Terms of Employment Information Act.

The Respondent states that the within claim is misconceived. It states that while the Respondent understands that the Complainant was frustrated by the administrative delay in receiving his Statement of Employment, an employer is not statutorily required under the Act to provide post-employment documentation.

The Respondent states that the Complainant has not raised any issue regarding the core terms of his employment contract and accordingly there is no breach of the Act.

The Respondent acknowledges a delay in September/October 2025 when responding to the Complainant’s request. It states that due to a heavy workload and changes in the HR team, this led to an oversight. The Respondent states that the voicemails from the Complainant were going into a generic inbox which presented a difficulty.

The Respondent states that it is not aware of the Complainant contacting any member of management or any team member directly despite having names of key team members on their website. The Respondent states that no request for an employer reference or statement was ever received directly from the Named Company.      

I have carefully examined the evidence from both parties in the within complaint. The Complainant claims that the Respondent is in breach of the Act due to a delay by the Respondent in providing him with a Statement of Employment for the purposes of recruitment with another Named Company.

The Respondent states that the claim is misconceived.

The Respondent states that the situation is regrettable but that there was an administrative delay due to changes in the HR team and the difficulty due to the Complainant’s voicemails going to a generic inbox.

The Terms of Employment (Information) Act requires an employer to provide employees with a written statement of the core terms of their employment within a specified period following commencement.

Based on the evidence heard, I find that the Complainant has not demonstrated that the Respondent has breached the Act. Accordingly, I find that the complaint is not well founded.

I find that the Respondent has not breached the Act. I find that this complaint is not well founded.

Terms of Employment (Information) Act