Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Soumitra  Mondal

Test Triangle

Representatives

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-00077670-001

17/11/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00077670-002

17/11/2025

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

CA-00077670-003

17/11/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 14 of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act, 2003

CA-00077770-001

19/11/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00077770-002

19/11/2025

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

CA-00077770-003

19/11/2025

These complaints arise from an offer of employment made by the Respondent to the Complainant in October 2025, under which a written contract issued specifying a proposed commencement date of 5 November 2025.

Prior to that date, difficulties arose in relation to the completion of onboarding requirements. The Respondent notified the Complainant that, as a result, the anticipated start date would be deferred to 12 November 2025. The Complainant indicated that he would not be available to commence on that revised date, and no alternative start date was agreed between the parties.

On 12 November 2025, before any work had commenced, the Complainant tendered his resignation. Although there was some subsequent engagement between the parties regarding that resignation, the Complainant ultimately confirmed on 16 November 2025 that he was resigning with immediate effect.

The instant complaints arise from this sequence of events, in circumstances where the Complainant did not, in fact, take up duty or perform work for the Respondent.

The Complainant stated that he entered into a binding contract of employment with the Respondent, which specified a commencement date of 5 November 2025. He asserted that this contractual start date triggered both contractual and statutory obligations on the part of the Respondent. He alleged that the Respondent failed to provide the required written statement of core terms within the statutory timeframe and attempted to alter his start date and salary commencement without issuing any formal written amendment. He further asserted that he was not provided with a workplace, clear duties, or definitive reporting arrangements, which created uncertainty and prevented him from performing his role.

The Complainant also claimed that he was not paid wages allegedly due for the period from 5 November to 16 November 2025, despite what he described as the commencement of his employment. He stated that he remained available for work during this period but was not assigned duties or working hours. In addition, he alleged that he was treated less favourably as a fixed-term employee and that the Respondent sought to avoid their contractual obligations. He further contended that, following his resignation, he was subjected to pressure and threatening communications from the Respondent, which he characterised as penalisation arising from his attempts to assert his statutory rights.

The Respondent disputed that the Complainant ever commenced employment. They accepted that a contract of employment issued which included a proposed start date of 5 November 2025, but stated that the Complainant did not complete the required onboarding documentation in advance of that date. As a result, the Respondent informed the Complainant, prior to the proposed commencement, that his start date would be deferred to 12 November 2025. The Respondent asserted that the Complainant then indicated that he would not be available to commence work on that revised date.

The Respondent further stated that, before any work commenced, the Complainant tendered his resignation on 12 November 2025, giving one month’s notice. Although the Respondent invited him to reconsider that position, the Complainant subsequently confirmed on 16 November 2025 that he was resigning with immediate effect. The Respondent highlighted that, at no point, did the Complainant attend for work, perform any duties, or present himself as ready, willing, and available to work on an agreed start date.

On that basis, the Respondent stated that no employment relationship ever came into effect in practice and that the Complainant did not attain the status of an employee for the purposes of the relevant legislation. They asserted that, in the absence of any work performed or any period of availability for work, no entitlement to wages or to statutory protections arose.

The central issue in this case is whether an employment relationship ever existed between the parties such as to give rise to the statutory rights relied upon by the Complainant.

While it is not in dispute that a contract of employment was issued to the Complainant specifying a commencement date of 5 November 2025, I am satisfied on the evidence that this did not ultimately take effect. Prior to that date, the Respondent informed the Complainant in writing that, due to delays on his part in completing the required onboarding documentation, his start date would be deferred to 12 November 2025. This constituted a clear and timely written communication adjusting the anticipated commencement of employment.

The Complainant responded indicating that he would not be available to commence employment on 12 November and suggested a later start. Before any revised start date could be agreed or implemented, the Complainant submitted his resignation on 12 November 2025, giving one month’s notice. Although the Respondent invited him to reconsider this position and he briefly did so, the Complainant subsequently confirmed on 16 November 2025 that he was resigning with immediate effect.

At no point during this period did the Complainant actually commence work, perform any duties, or present himself as ready, willing, and available to work on an agreed start date. The evidence clearly indicates that the parties never progressed beyond the pre-commencement stage of the contractual relationship.

In these circumstances, I find that, while a contract of employment had been issued, the employment relationship did not crystallise in practice. The mere existence of a written contract, without any commencement of performance or mutual fulfilment of obligations, is not sufficient to establish that an employment relationship existed for the purposes of the statutory provisions relied upon.

As I am of the view that the Complainant did not commence employment, I find that he did not attain the status of an employee in practice. Accordingly, the statutory protections invoked — including those relating to payment of wages, provision of written terms, working time, fixed-term work, and penalisation — do not arise.

Furthermore, in the absence of any work performed or any period during which the Complainant was ready, willing, and available to work under an agreed commencement arrangement, no entitlement to wages can arise.

CA-00077670-001:

As I have found, as set out above, that the Complainant did not commence employment, no contract of employment came into effect in practice. As the statutory obligations under the Act did not crystallise, the complaint is not well founded.

CA-00077670-002:

In the absence of either work having been performed by the Complainant or him being available for work, as set out above, no entitlement to wages arises and the complaint is not well founded

CA-00077670-003:

This complaint is predicated on the existence of an employment relationship and operative contractual terms. Given my finding above that employment never commenced, the issue of a variation of terms under the Act does not arise and accordingly the complaint is not well founded.

CA-00077770-001:

As the protections afforded under this Act apply to employees and I have found that the Complainant did not enter into employment, the complaint is not well founded.

CA-00077770-002:

The Complainant alleged entitlement to compensation for zero hours. However, such entitlement arises only where an employee is required to be available for work. In circumstances where the Complainant had not commenced employment, and had indicated unavailability for the revised start date, the statutory provisions as set out in this Act do not apply. Accordingly, the complaint is not well founded

CA-00077770-003:

As I have found that no employment relationship existed and that penalisation under the Act presupposes an employment relationship, I find that this complaint is not well founded.