Return on Investment From Strategic Health & Wellbeing Initiatives

There are many challenges and rewards involved in working in the nonprofit sector. Organisations are tasked not only with delivering vital services to communities but also with managing limited resources, high workloads, and emotionally demanding roles. In this context, investing in strategic employee health and wellbeing initiatives may seem like a low priority. Investments in employee health and wellbeing are nonetheless capable of delivering tangible returns for both employers and employees.

Employer ROI: Compliance, Cost Savings & Culture

While the moral case for promoting good employee wellbeing is clear, the business case is equally compelling. Employer side return on investment from health and wellbeing initiatives include:

Legal Compliance: A Fundamental Return

Under the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005, employers have a legal obligation to ensure, as far as reasonably practicable, the safety, health and welfare of their employees. This duty includes:

• Managing psychosocial risks such as stress, burnout, and harassment.
• Implementing risk assessments and appropriate controls for both physical and mental health hazards.
• Promoting a workplace culture that supports wellbeing.

Strategic wellbeing initiatives help nonprofits go beyond box-ticking compliance. They offer a structured way to identify and address risks proactively, reduce exposure to legal liabilities from employee claims and foster a safer, more productive work environment.

Reduced Absenteeism & Presenteeism

Stress-related illness, musculoskeletal issues, and burnout remain leading causes of workplace absence. An employee wellbeing strategy targeting the risks faced by employees incorporating mental health supports, workload management, and flexible work arrangements if appropriate can reduce absenteeism and improve presenteeism (when staff are at work but not fully functioning due to health issues). For nonprofits operating on tight budgets and limited staffing, even small reductions in absenteeism can significantly impact service delivery and operational costs.

Improved Retention and Engagement

Wellbeing initiatives let employees know that the organisation values its people. When employees feel supported through practices that make their working lives safer, engagement levels rise. In a sector where burnout and high employee turnover are common, strategic wellbeing programmes can serve as a key part of retention initiatives, preserving institutional knowledge and reducing recruitment costs.

The Employee ROI: Health, Motivation & Meaning

Employees benefit from strategic wellbeing initiatives in ways that go beyond the workplace.

Better Mental and Physical Health

Access to Employee Assistance Programmes (EAPs), mental health training, physical activity initiatives, or even simple steps like improved ergonomics and regular check-ins can make a tangible difference in an employee’s quality of life both in and out of work.

Workplace Culture

Employees who feel cared for are more motivated, more productive, and more likely to advocate for their organisation. In nonprofits, where a sense of purpose is a key part of employee motivation, wellbeing supports demonstrate to employees that workplace culture is aligned with the values of the organisation and its people.

Work-Life Balance 

Wellbeing programmes often include flexibility, stress management, and support tools that allow employees to manage their personal time and health more effectively

Reduced Stigma 

Normalising health (both mental and physical) and wellbeing conversations in the workplace helps break down barriers, creating a culture where employees feel safe seeking help.

Strategic, Not Sporadic: What Makes Wellbeing Initiatives Work

To realise these returns, wellbeing should be approached strategically, not as a series of disconnected initiatives. 

Practical steps to embed health and wellbeing into workplace strategy and culture include:

• Promote work-life balance: Implement policies that encourage flexible working hours, remote work, or other appropriate practices to reduce the risk of employee stress and burnout.
• Provide mental health resources: Ensure employees have access to employee Assistance Programs (EAPs), counselling services, and stress management workshops.
• Undertake wellbeing audits: This exercise will help to identify strengths, weaknesses and opportunities.
• Develop a formal wellbeing policy: A formal policy can be tailored to reflect the challenges faced by employees working in the nonprofit sector and the demographics of the workforce.
• Measure impact and outcomes: Monitor relevant KPIs, including absenteeism rates, staff turnover, and employee engagement surveys.
• Leadership involvement: Ensure management and leadership teams actively participate in health and wellbeing initiatives, setting a positive example and reinforcing the organisation’s commitment to positive physical and mental wellbeing.

A Strategic Imperative for Nonprofits

For nonprofit organisations, the pressure to do more with less is ongoing. But investing in health and wellbeing is not just a moral imperative, it’s a strategic one. From compliance and risk management to employee retention and performance management, the return on investment is real and measurable.

At its best, a strategic wellbeing approach creates a virtuous cycle: a safer, healthier, more resilient workforce delivering greater impact for the communities they serve.

How Adare Can Help

For organisations that are ready to move beyond making a symbolic gesture, Adare partners with Healthy Place to Work ® in helping organisations achieve a recognised certification as a healthy place to work. This certification demonstrates each participating organisation’s commitment to employee health and wellbeing.

Through this partnership, Adare has assisted organisations throughout Ireland in developing and implementing strategic health and wellbeing frameworks that are evidence-based, practical, and aligned with organisational objectives.

Our team of HR and wellbeing experts guide organisations from initial assessment and strategy development right through to implementation, reporting and impact evaluation.

Social Worker Awarded €44,000 for Discrimination on Grounds of Gender and Race

Background

Two complaints concerning discrimination on the race and gender ground arose from a decision of the Respondent not to recognise the Complainant’s academic qualifications in social care and other qualifications prescribed by the Health and Social Care Professionals Council. The Complainant claimed that, unlike two of her colleagues, one of whom, unlike her, was Caucasian and the other who was a man, her level 8 degree had not been recognised as adequate for consideration as a qualified social care worker.

Summary of Complainant’s Case

Discrimination on the Race Ground

The Complainant claimed that, compared to her female colleague, she was being treated less favourably on the ground of race.  The Complainant’s female colleague was Caucasian and the complainant was not. The Complainant’s female colleague was interviewed for her job in 2006 at the same time as the Complainant and they were both employed as social care workers. The Complainant’s female colleague was from Poland and she graduated there with a Bachelor’s Degree in Social Science and a Master’s Degree in Pedagogy of People with Intellectual Disabilities.

In 2019, the Complainant’s female colleague discovered that she was on the unqualified pay scale, and she raised a query with the HR department. She said that the matter was rectified in a few days, and she received back pay with effect from the date of her qualification.

Discrimination on the Gender Ground

The Complainant named a male colleague as a comparator who, like her, held a level 8 Bachelor’s Degree in Social Science from UCD. In a statement he provided to the Complainant for inclusion in her submission at the hearing, the Complainant’s male colleague said that, when he was being recruited, he negotiated his entry point on the salary scale at the “with qualification” level. Payslips for both employees were submitted in evidence and showed that the Complainant and her male colleague were on different pay scales.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

Response to the Comparators Presented by the Complainant

In response to the claim of discrimination on the race ground, the Respondent stated that the pay scale was reviewed in 2019 and the Complainant’s female colleague was moved to the qualified social care worker pay scale because she held a primary degree and a post-graduate degree from another country. The Respondent stated that “it was incumbent upon the Respondent to look beyond the very prescriptive list of approved Irish courses, to ensure that there was no inference of discrimination.” The Respondent’s view was that the Complainant’s female colleague’s postgraduate qualifications were in excess of what was required by Health and Social Care Professionals Council and that an exception was justified. The Complainant had a post-graduate qualification in business studies and it was the Respondent’s position that the Complainant’s female colleague was not “a true comparator” for the purpose of this complaint.

On the gender claim, the Respondent exhibited records showing that the Complainant’s male colleague commenced work in a separate service overseen by the Respondent in November 2011 and, at the time, he negotiated to be placed on the “with qualification” pay scale. In 2014, when he transferred to the unit where he worked alongside the Complainant, the Respondent stated that “the HR team felt compelled to honour his pre-existing T&Cs.” The Respondent submitted that the Complainant’s male colleague’s terms were “an anomaly rather than the norm” and that he was not a valid comparator on the basis that his terms and conditions were negotiated pre-employment.

Findings and Conclusions: 

The Burden of Proof

The Adjudicator’s first task was to consider if the Complainant had shown that, based on the primary facts, she had been discriminated against by the Respondent due to their decision not to consider her as a qualified social care worker based on her Degree in Social Science and her experience in the role of a social care worker since 2002.

The Primary Facts

The Complainant worked as a relief social care worker from 2002. In 2006, by which time she had completed her Degree in Social Science, a vacancy was advertised for a permanent role and she applied for the position. The job advertisement did not identify the role as “qualified” or “unqualified” and the contract issued to the Complainant in March 2006 referred to the position simply as a “Social Care Worker.” This title is repeated in the cover letter accompanying the contract.

Under the heading, “Salary Scale,” the contract made no reference to the salary scale being applicable to a role as an unqualified social care worker.

The Complainant’s evidence was that, when she was recruited to the permanent role in March 2006, her understanding was that she was appointed to the job because she had completed a level 8 Degree in Social Science. The Respondent provided no evidence to show that the Complainant was informed at the time she was recruited that she was appointed to a role as an unqualified social care worker.  Many employees in the role of social care worker at the time that the Complainant was hired had no formal qualifications and they were encouraged by the Respondent and supported financially to take FETAC level 5 training. The Complainant was never directed to take this training.  This led the Adjudicator to conclude that the position of the Respondent was that she was qualified for the job.

The Complainant’s male colleague was a UCD graduate in Social Science. The decision of the Respondent to hire him on a more advantageous pay scale is indicates that, at the time of his appointment, he was treated more favourably than the Complainant.

In 2019, at the same time as the Complainant, her female colleague discovered that she was on the unqualified pay scale, and the matter was rectified as soon as she raised it with the Respondent’s HR department. The Adjudicator was satisfied that the facts submitted by the Complainant were sufficient to raise a presumption of discrimination. The burden of proving that discrimination on the gender and race grounds did not occur therefore shifted to the Respondent.

Examination of the Respondent’s Case that the Complainant was not Discriminated Against

In 2020, when the Complainant enquired with the HR department about her classification on the unqualified scale, she was, in effect, seeking to negotiate a move to the qualified scale. The fact that, unlike her male colleague, her efforts were unsuccessful, indicated that she was treated less favourably.  When the male colleague transferred to the same service as the Complainant, he was “unqualified” and therefore in the same position as the Complainant. As the Respondent stated that the male colleague’s terms and conditions were “an anomaly,” there was room in the organisation for another anomaly and the Adjudicator found that it was discriminatory to treat the Complainant less favourably.

It was particularly damning that the Complainant was not aware and was not informed about the two pay scales. The fact that this information was concealed from her was deceptive in the Adjudicator’s view and the failure to rectify the situation resulted in her being treated less favourably compared to her male colleague.

Moving to the Complainant’s claim that she was discriminated against on the ground of her race, the Adjudicator noted the Respondent’s submission that, when the Complainant’s female colleague requested to be moved to the qualified pay scale, “it was incumbent upon the Respondent to look beyond the very prescriptive list of approved Irish courses, to ensure there was no inference of discrimination.”.

The Adjudicator found that most reasonable people with knowledge of the social care profession would conclude that an employee with a Social Science Degree and more than 20 years of dedicated and unblemished service fell within the parameters of having a “sufficiently relevant” qualification.  It was open to the Respondent to approach the Complainant’s case with the same level of flexibility they applied to her female colleague and, it was the Adjudicator’s view that, by seeking to ensure that there was no inference of discrimination in her case, the Complainant, who is of a different race, was treated less favourably.

Conclusion

It was also apparent that since 2023, the Respondent had discretion regarding the determination of the qualifications of experienced social care workers in their employment. This discretion was exercised in the case of two of the Complainant’s colleagues. It was with some regret that the Adjudicator found that the only explanation for not exercising the same discretion with regard to the Complainant was related to the fact that she was not Caucasian and not a man.

Decision: The Adjudicator concluded that the Complainant was discriminated against on the grounds of race and gender and directed the Respondent to pay the Complainant €44,000 in compensation.

Recommendations

With increasing pay transparency compliance on the horizon, organisations should ensure any differences in pay levels can be objectively justified to minimise the risk of pay-related discrimination claims. This decision is also the latest in a number of recent discrimination claims that have attracted high levels of compensation. Organisations should note that in employment equality cases, awards of compensation tend to be higher as they must have a dissuasive effect on the employer and they often include an allocation for the effects of the discrimination on the employee. 

World Mental Health Day – 10 October

10 October marks World Mental Health Day each year. The overall objective of World Mental Health Day is to raise awareness of mental health issues and to activate efforts to improve mental health supports. This annual observance provides an opportunity for all stakeholders from employers to employees and service providers to highlight the role positive mental health plays in both individual and organisational success. For nonprofit organisations, where staff often work under pressure, in emotionally demanding roles, mental health supports are not a nice to have, they are essential.

Investing in mental health not only benefits employees, it enhances overall organisational performance. Some of the organisational benefits include:

• Improved Productivity: Employees who feel mentally supported are more focused, creative, and resilient in their roles.
• Reduced Absenteeism & Burnout: Proactive supports like Employee Assistance Programmes (EAPs), mental health training, and flexible policies reduce time lost to stress-related illness.
• Better Retention & Engagement: A culture that values wellbeing strengthens trust, motivation, and loyalty — all vital in a sector where staff retention is a challenge.

By embedding mental health into your organisational culture through open conversations, clear policies, relevant supports, and resources, employers not only ensure they minimise compliance risks, they also build stronger, more resilient teams.

How Adare Can Help

For organisations that are ready to move beyond making a symbolic gesture, Adare partners with Healthy Place to Work ® in helping organisations achieve a recognised certification as a healthy place to work. This certification demonstrates each participating organisation’s commitment to employee health and wellbeing.

Through this partnership, Adare has assisted organisations throughout Ireland in developing and implementing strategic health and wellbeing frameworks that are evidence-based, practical, and aligned with organisational objectives. Our team of HR and wellbeing experts guide organisations from initial assessment and strategy development right through to implementation, reporting and impact evaluation.

With the recent celebration of World Mental Health Day, we are inviting employers to take meaningful steps toward creating more resilient organisations that reflect the good health of their employees.

3 December 2025 – International Day of Persons with Disabilities (IDPD)

Each year, IDPD invites organisations to reflect on how they can create fair, inclusive opportunities for people with disabilities.

For the nonprofit sector where equality, inclusion and community are core values, IDPD is a timely reminder that promoting disability inclusion is more than just a legal obligation.

In 2025, the theme of IDPD continues to emphasise “fostering disability inclusive societies” which is a sentiment that every nonprofit, charity, and community organisation can bring to life through its employment practices, inclusion efforts, and governance.

Why Disability Inclusion Matters

For organisations dedicated to promoting social progress, true inclusion means ensuring that people with disabilities have equal access to employment, volunteering, leadership, and participation at every level.

Embracing disability inclusion enhances organisational impact by:

• Reflecting the diversity of the communities nonprofits serve.
• Strengthening trust and accountability with funders, stakeholders, and beneficiaries.
• Fostering creativity and innovation by welcoming diverse perspectives.
• Building a compassionate and supportive workplace culture where everyone can thrive.

Legal Obligations Under Employment Equality Law

Under the employment Equality Acts, organisations must ensure that no person is treated less favourably in employment on the basis of a disability.

This prohibition on discrimination extends to all stages of the employment relationship from recruitment and selection to access to training and termination.

Disability is also broadly defined under the legislation and includes physical, sensory, intellectual, mental health, and learning differences whether current, past, may exist in the future or imputed to a person.

Key Responsibilities

Prevent Discrimination

Ensure that no policies, practices, or behaviours disadvantage people with disabilities either directly or indirectly.

Provide Reasonable Accommodation

Take practical steps to support employees and volunteers with disabilities so they can perform their roles effectively. This may include:

• Adjusting work schedules or duties.
• Making physical spaces accessible.
• Providing assistive technology or communication supports.
• Offering remote or hybrid work options where feasible.

Ensure Equal Access to Employment

Review job advertisements, application forms, and interview processes to ensure they are accessible and inclusive for applicants with disabilities. Consider alternative formats, accessible online systems, and flexible interview arrangements.

Practical Steps to Promote Equal Opportunities

While compliance is essential, going beyond the bare legal requirements is vital to develop a more inclusive workplace. The following HR best practices can be employed by organisations to create a more inclusive workplace for people with disabilities. Practical steps to consider include:

Leading with Inclusion

Embed equality, equal opportunities and accessibility into your organisational strategy not just HR policy. Appoint a board or staff member as an inclusion champion to take ownership of this strategic priority.

Policy Reviews

Regularly assess your recruitment, volunteer, and employment policies to ensure they align with the principles of the Employment Equality Act.

Provide Disability Awareness Training

Offer training to staff, managers, and volunteers to build understanding and confidence in supporting colleagues and service users with disabilities.

Engage Colleagues with Disabilities

Involve people with disabilities in decision-making, programme design, and evaluation. This strengthens inclusion and ensures your organisation reflects the views of the widest range of stakeholders.

Use Clear Accessible Communication Methods

Use clear, plain language and ensure websites, forms, and internal systems are accessible 

Leverage Funding and Supports

There are government supports for employers under the Reasonable Accommodation Fund and the Disability Awareness Support Scheme which may provide financial support for inclusion initiatives. 

Inclusion as a Shared Commitment

IDPD provides an opportunity to demonstrate that equality is about more than just compliance. Nonprofits have an opportunity to lead by example in creating workplaces and services where everyone has a fair chance to contribute.

By embedding disability inclusion into organisational culture, nonprofits strengthen their capacity to create meaningful change and reflect the values of equality and dignity that underpin the community and voluntary sector.

Inclusion Begins With Action

This December 3rd, take time to review your organisation’s approach, celebrate progress, identify gaps, and commit to building a truly equal opportunity workplace.

HR Manager’s ‘Sharp’ Style a Legitimate Basis for Probationary Dismissal by NGO

Background

The Complainant joined the Respondent charity in a HR role in April 2024.

The Complainant was dismissed in July on the basis of probationary performance. The Complainant disputed that her performance was the reason for her dismissal and submitted a complaint alleging that her dismissal was in fact penalisation for her having raised protected disclosures related to the recruitment of an employee with outstanding vetting queries. 

Summary of Complainant’s Case

The Complainant submitted that the Respondent breached the Complainant’s employment rights by dismissing her due to her purportedly failing her probationary period. She was dismissed having raised serious concerns about the Respondent’s vetting process and the recruitment of Mr X. 

The Respondent’s National Safeguarding Manager at the relevant time, gave evidence under oath as to her views on safeguarding in general and the Respondent’s handling of Mr X’s vetting. She was of the view that the appointment of an employee with insufficient vetting was too great a risk even in circumstances where the employee was supervised as supervision can fail due to staffing pressures and other issues. 

Summary of Respondent’s Case

The Respondent submitted that it dismissed the Complainant legitimately and during her probation on the basis that she was a bad fit and had poor communications skills. The Respondent disputed that the Complainant made any protected disclosures and that any purported protected disclosures had no link to the decision to dismiss.

A HR Generalist who worked with the Complainant gave evidence relating to his perception that the Complainant did not fit well into the team.

The Respondent’s Head of Risk and Compliance and Governance was involved with the queries that arose following Mr X’s recruitment. He provided evidence on that process and on the operation of the Respondent organisation in general. 

The Respondent’s Head of HR and the Complainant’s line manager also gave evidence under affirmation. She was the person who decided to dismiss the Complainant and gave evidence of this decision and her involvement in the recruitment of Mr X pending completion of the vetting process. 

Findings and Conclusions

The Adjudicator noted open email correspondence between the Complainant’s Manager and the Head of Compliance and Governance confirming that she had approved Mr X’s hiring with his vetting outstanding. It could not follow that this was an issue that the Manager was trying to cover up or was concerned about the Complainant, a more junior member of staff, knowing about. It was not clear how the Complainant’s dismissal might have benefitted her Manager or how the Manager was at risk from the decision to employ Mr X on restricted duties pending full clearance. She had in fact handed in her resignation in May 2024 for unrelated reasons.

Two other heads of function, both senior to the Complainant, were concerned about Mr X’s hiring and he was soon put on garden leave and then dismissed. The Respondent’s position on the matter largely aligned with the Complainant’s views and they followed the course of action she argued for and dismissed him. Their delay in this regard was minimal. There was no evidence to support the position that the Respondent generally or her Manager specifically had any interest in retaliating against the Complainant, or anyone else, who raised concerns related to Mr X’s vetting.

However, there was evidence to support the Complainant having communication issues and this was the basis for her dismissal. The Complainant’s Manager gave evidence that she was concerned about the Complainant’s communication style. This involved things like emailing without salutations, copying colleagues in emails that could be perceived as critical as well as the Complainant’s general tone. She explained that the Respondent is a member governed, and volunteer led NGO. Tone is important in that context. This is particularly true of the HR function who management rely on to be emotionally intelligent advisors and sounding boards and be able to advise them.

The Complainant’s Manager flagged a number of these items in a probation meeting in July which was about 10 weeks after the Complainant had started working for the Respondent. She was not satisfied that the Complainant was adequately engaged in the probation review process, accepting of feedback or committed to improving. When she said she was concerned about how she was interacting with the team, the Complainant did not accept this and instead sought evidence that she had interpersonal issues with other members of the team.

The Adjudicator concluded that the evidence and the Complainant’s testimony pointed to the Respondent having a genuine problem with the Complainant’s communication style and her either being unable to accept this or her determining that it was her employer’s style which was wrong and not hers.

Either reaction was a perfectly legitimate basis for a probationary dismissal as well as unrelated to any protected disclosure.

Decision

The unfair dismissal claim was not established as the Respondent’s response was a legitimate basis for a probationary dismissal. 

Recommendations for employers

The Adjudicator concluded on the evidence that the Respondent had a genuine problem with the Complainant’s communication style and her refusal to accept this feedback was a perfectly legitimate basis for a probationary dismissal.

The decision serves as a reminder that employees with less than one year’s service have a right to make an unfair dismissal claim under certain statutes as well as the importance of keeping clear records of probation meetings with new hires. Detailed notes of meetings with employees could later play a vital role in defending any claims before the Workplace Relations Commission or Labour Court.

25 November is International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women

25 November each year marks International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women. This global initiative raises awareness of gender-based violence and calls on organisations, governments, and communities to take action to support those affected.

While the day serves primarily as an awareness raising initiative about prevention and supports, it also serves as a timely reminder for organisations to ensure they are complying with their statutory obligations around supporting employees who experience domestic violence.

This month also coincides with another important milestone. Statutory domestic violence leave under the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023 came into effect on 27 November 2023.

Under this legislation, employees are entitled to up to five days of paid domestic violence leave in a 12-month period. The leave can be used by anyone experiencing domestic violence or supporting a relevant person (such as a dependent) who is experiencing such circumstances. Employers must ensure that workplace policies and procedures provide appropriate confidentiality, sensitivity, and support in these situations.

As this is a relatively new statutory entitlement, its upcoming anniversary serves as a timely opportunity for HR and leadership teams to:

• Review domestic violence leave policies to ensure they align with the legislation and current best practice.
• Check internal awareness and training, ensuring managers and HR professionals understand how to respond to disclosures appropriately.
• Reassess support measures such as Employee Assistance Programmes (EAPs), signposting to specialist services, and safeguarding procedures.
• Ensure confidentiality protocols are robust and clearly communicated to managers.

Two years on from the introduction of domestic violence leave, this is the perfect time to carry out a compliance review and make sure your policy, training, and procedures are up to date.

If your organisation needs support reviewing or updating your domestic violence leave policy, Adare’s expert HR consultants can help ensure your organisation meets both its legal obligations and its duty of care to employees.

Employment Law Considerations Around Engaging Relief or Seasonal Employees

The Christmas season is a busy time for organisations and their employees. As the year ends, demand for services often rises. Employees also want to use their leave to be with family. This can strain labour resources. To manage this, organisations usually hire seasonal or relief employees. The following FAQs will help organisations navigate this challenge while following Irish employment law.

Do seasonal/relief workers need a contract of employment?

Yes, seasonal workers have the right to a written statement of terms and conditions or a written contract. This should be provided within five days of starting work. Organisations must give a written statement of core terms within five days and the rest within one month. Best practice includes being clear about the agreement’s duration. A fixed-term or specific purpose contract should state the end date if known. This contract also outlines the rights and responsibilities of both parties.

Do seasonal/relief workers have the same rights as full-time employees?

Seasonal workers may not have exactly the same rights as full-time employees, but they are still protected by various laws. To confirm rights and ensure compliance, it’s best to have the employee sign a fixed-term or specific purpose contract before starting. Seasonal employees are entitled to rest periods, paid annual leave, public holiday entitlements, minimum wage, and health and safety protections. Employment equality rules apply from the start of a seasonal employee’s contract. To avoid discrimination claims, organisations must treat seasonal workers fairly, considering the nine protected grounds in the Employment Equality Act, such as age, disability, gender, and family status.

Are there any specific compliance requirements for seasonal employees?

Yes, the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act requires that fixed-term workers be treated no less favourably than permanent employees. Employers must also inform fixed-term workers about job vacancies so they have the same chance of securing a permanent position.

Do we need to provide training to seasonal employees?

Yes, training, onboarding, or induction is crucial for seasonal employees. Health and safety issues specific to the role or workplace need to be addressed. Proper onboarding helps employees perform better during busy periods. It ensures they are ready to meet the demands of their roles.

Conclusion

Engaging seasonal or relief employees during the busy Christmas period requires careful planning and compliance. Even for short-term roles, organisations must provide proper documentation and ensure statutory rights and protections. Clear fixed-term contracts, effective training, and vigilance regarding equality and safety obligations help reduce legal risks. By treating seasonal employment with the same care as permanent roles, organisations can meet festive demands while creating a compliant, safe, and productive environment for everyone.

Senior Employee Paid Less Than New Recruits Awarded €16,000

Background

The Complainant claimed he faced discrimination, including unequal pay for equal work.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant worked for the Respondent from March 2015 until his dismissal in December 2023. At dismissal, he was 68 years old, earning €16.48 per hour for a 20-hour week.

He stated he earned €32,500 annually when full-time, while younger colleagues doing similar tasks earned more. He mentioned two colleagues: one earned €39,500, and another earned €38,000.

The Respondent argued that the pay difference was due to qualifications. However, the Complainant had relevant certifications, including Health and Safety Management, First Aid, CPR, and Dignity and Respect at Work training.

Although the Respondent denied unequal pay, they raised the Complainant’s salary to €34,000 and issued back payment of €4,453.60. In December 2023, they dismissed his concerns, citing flexibility in extending his employment past retirement age.

The Complainant believed his dismissal and the pay gap were due to age discrimination.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent stated that in early 2022, while developing a new service model, the Complainant requested to continue working. They agreed on a fixed-term contract until the end of 2022, with no new duties added.

Throughout 2022, the Respondent communicated the new strategy and its impact on roles. In October 2022, the Complainant sought another extension. The Respondent offered two choices: six months at 37 hours per week or 12 months at 20 hours per week.

The Complainant chose the latter and was informed it would be his final contract, ending in December 2023. The Respondent offered retirement planning support, which the Complainant declined.

In November 2022, the Complainant suggested working until age 70 for financial reasons. The Respondent refused, citing previous extensions beyond retirement age and a new structure needing different qualifications. They confirmed the final extension in writing.

On 18 December 2023, the Complainant emailed HR, claiming unequal pay among Stroke Coordinators. HR replied the next day, stating no underpayment had occurred.

The Respondent explained that since late 2022, new roles needed higher qualifications and had a broader scope, justifying a higher salary. However, during cross-examination, the Respondent’s witness could not explain the exact role details or the responsibilities that justified the pay differences. She did admit there was no clear reason for the Complainant’s €32,000 salary when new hires earned €34,000.

The Respondent noted that one comparator was hired for a different role with a higher salary, but she remained on that salary when returning to a full-time Coordinator role. Thus, the justification for her higher pay had lapsed.

As a goodwill gesture, the Respondent made an ex-gratia payment based on the full-time equivalent for new hires from January 2022. This payment was meant as a positive gesture at retirement.

Findings and Conclusions:

The Respondent presented no evidence to support its justification for paying the two identified comparators higher wages. While they mentioned the role requiring a third-level qualification and a broader job description, no documents distinguished this from the Complainant’s role.

The Adjudicator noted that there was clear evidence showing the Complainant was paid differently from others doing similar work. The Complainant proved he performed like work.

The difference between full-time and part-time hourly pay was also significant. The Complainant sought to work 37 hours a week until he received an ultimatum in November 2022: accept a 20-hour contract for one year, a 37-hour contract for six months, or no further contract.

No statistical data was provided, despite the Respondent mentioning benchmarking and pay reviews, to justify different pay rates for Stroke Group Coordinators. There was also no evidence from either comparator regarding their duties, qualifications, or skills mentioned by the Respondent. No evidence showed any Coordinators earning the same hourly rate as the Complainant.

Finally, the Respondent’s “adjustment” to the Complainant’s salary of €4,453.60, marked as “back pay,” was noted on his payslip. An email stated this increased his wages to a “full-time equivalent of €34,000 effective January 2022.” While seen as goodwill, it effectively acknowledged that his colleagues earned a higher hourly wage of €17.67 compared to the Complainant’s €16.48 in 2022.

Thus, the Adjudicator found no objective justification from the Respondent for paying the Complainant a lower hourly rate for the same work compared to the two valid comparators.

For these reasons, the Adjudicator determined the Complainant faced discrimination under the equal pay provisions of the Employment Equality Act.

Decision:

The Adjudicator ordered the Respondent to compensate the Complainant over €16,000 for the effects of discrimination under the equal pay provisions of the Employment Equality Act.

Recommendations for Employers:

Equal pay claims often involve comparators with more seniority or experience earning more than peers doing similar work. This case was different: the Complainant, with significant experience since March 2015, claimed he earned less than new recruits.

While equal pay claims are rare, increasing pay transparency regulations in 2026 may lead to more claims. Employers should conduct risk assessments to identify any pay disparities among employees doing like work without objective justification.

Auto-enrolment Update: My Future Fund Employer Portal Open for Registration

The My Future Fund Employer Portal opened on 1 December. This is to prepare for the first contributions under the new automatic enrolment scheme starting in January.

Organisations should take these steps to get ready:

• Complete their profile on the My Future Fund Portal by the end of December 2025.
• Set up a payment method.
• Run payroll as usual in January.

The National Automatic Enrolment Retirement Savings Authority (NAERSA) will run online portals for employers and employees. This aims to ease the compliance burden for organisations. NAERSA will check employees’ payroll records to see who is eligible for auto-enrolment.

Employees will be automatically enrolled if they:

• Are aged between 23 and 60.
• Earn €20,000 or more per year across all jobs.
• Do not have existing supplementary pension coverage.

Organisations won’t need to check if employees meet these criteria. Once an employee is eligible, NAERSA will send their employer an Automatic Enrolment Payroll Notification via payroll software.

All organisations with employees in Ireland, no matter their size or structure, must support the auto-enrolment scheme for eligible employees and those who want to opt in.

To help organisations meet these new duties confidently, Adare’s consultants offer expert HR guidance on all aspects of auto-enrolment compliance.

Pay Transparency: What It Means for Nonprofit Organisations

Pay transparency compliance will soon be a key legal obligation for employers. The EU’s Pay Transparency Directive (the Directive) must be incorporated into national law by June 2026. This directive introduces new rights for workers and new responsibilities for employers.

While the focus has mainly been on gender pay gap reporting, nonprofit organisations should note that many obligations apply to all employers, no matter their size. This change requires significant preparation, especially for smaller organisations that may not have been affected by past gender pay gap laws.

Employers should start preparing now, as these changes will affect recruitment practices, pay structures, and internal communication.

Key Objectives of the Directive

The main goal of the EU Pay Transparency Directive is to strengthen the principle of equal pay for equal work or work of equal value. It aims to reduce unjustified pay differences, particularly those linked to gender. The Directive increases pay transparency and helps employees enforce their rights.

Obligations That Apply to All Employers

Nonprofit organisations should note that several requirements apply to all employers, regardless of employee count. These include obligations related to recruitment, access to pay information, and pay transparency within the organisation.

Pay Transparency in Recruitment

Under the Directive, employers must:

• Provide information on the initial pay level or range in job ads or before interviews.
• Avoid asking about job applicants’ current or past pay levels.

These steps aim to promote fair salary negotiations and help eliminate historical pay inequalities.

Employee Right to Pay Information

All employees, no matter the company’s size, can request information about their pay level and the average pay for their job category. This includes employees in different roles that are still of equal value. Employers must provide this information within two months of the request and remind employees of their rights annually.

Prohibition on Pay Secrecy

Employers cannot include pay secrecy clauses in contracts. This allows employees to share or seek pay information freely. However, employers can require that any shared pay information be used only to assert equal pay rights. They can still restrict employees from disclosing their pay to competitors.

Joint Pay Assessment

Nonprofit organisations with over 50 employees already follow gender pay gap reporting laws. If their gender pay gap report shows a gap of 5% or more in any worker category, and they can’t justify this using unbiased criteria, they must conduct a joint pay assessment with employee representatives and take corrective action.

Practical Implications for Nonprofit Organisations

For HR teams and management in the nonprofit sector, the Directive has several practical implications:

• Review and update recruitment processes to ensure proper salary information is provided and applicants aren’t asked about past pay.
• Prepare for employee requests for pay information and ensure timely and accurate responses.
• Examine existing contracts and policies to remove any outdated pay secrecy clauses.

Employers should proactively analyse pay data by worker category to anticipate new pay transparency requirements. This analysis can help determine if a joint pay assessment is needed and identify objective factors that could explain any identified pay gaps.

Conclusion

While gender pay gap reporting has been in place in Ireland since 2022, stronger pay information rights will take effect in 2026, having a greater impact. To ensure compliance with growing pay transparency requirements, it’s wise for employers to start early.

The EU’s Pay Transparency Directive marks a significant move towards greater openness in pay practices. For nonprofit organisations, compliance is not just a legal obligation but an opportunity to reinforce values, build trust with employees, and commit to fairness and equality.

By proactively addressing gender-based pay gaps and their root causes, organisations will meet their legal duties and contribute to a fairer workplace.

Failure to Address Teacher’s Concerns Amounts to Constructive Dismissal

Background

The Complainant started working at the Respondent school in September 2009. Her employment ended in September 2024.

She filed a complaint with the WRC under the Unfair Dismissals Act, claiming constructive dismissal.

The Respondent denied the claim.

Summary of Complainant’s Case

The Complainant reported serious child protection incidents. This led to a dispute with a colleague, who then made false accusations against her. The Respondent treated this as a personal issue. The Complainant’s concerns were about child protection and bullying, not just interpersonal matters.

She found the Principal’s attempts to resolve the issues unsatisfactory. When she applied for a career break, the Principal advised her not to mention the complaint, fearing it could affect the decision.

The Complainant informed Tusla and the Teaching Council about her concerns. The Teaching Council replied, saying they were awaiting a report from the school.

The Complainant claimed the Teaching Council told her the school was unaware of the child protection issue. However, the Chairperson stated that the Board of Management was aware of the concerns.

She received no response to her stage 1 grievance against the Principal. She then moved to stage 2, sending her complaint to the Principal by registered post and email.

For stage 3, she took her grievance to the Board of Management. They said they wouldn’t address it because it was too old. The Complainant believed the school delayed the process deliberately. She proceeded to stage 4 but received no reply. Her grievance against the Principal was never investigated.

In August 2024, she finally received a copy of the grievance report, but there was no option to appeal.

Summary of Respondent’s Case

The Principal denied that the Board of Management intentionally delayed the investigation. He stated that the Complainant’s colleague was absent, causing delays.

The Principal referenced an investigator’s email, which said, “I fully accept that any delay in finalising the report is mine and has nothing whatsoever to do with the Board.” He argued this disproved any claims of intentional delay.

He mentioned that his time was taken up with data requests and complaints, which delayed his response. He insisted he took the matter seriously and followed the grievance procedure.

The Principal added that the school had strong child protection policies and credited the Complainant for her role.

Findings and Conclusions

The Adjudicator focused on two main issues in this case.

Child Protection Procedures

It was clear the Respondent did not handle the Complainant’s serious concerns properly. The Complainant felt strongly about the issue, even resigning from her Designated Liaison Person position. She felt misled by the Principal and believed that nothing was done about her concerns, especially after the Chairperson’s correspondence with the Teaching Council. While it was suggested that staff received additional training, no evidence of this training was provided at the relevant time or during the adjudication hearing.

Bullying and Harassment Complaint Against Colleague

The nearly five-year delay in addressing the bullying complaint was unacceptable and violated fair procedures. The Adjudicator rejected the Respondent’s claim that the delay was due to the external investigator. It was the Respondent’s duty to handle the complaint promptly. This delay severely undermined the Complainant’s trust in the Respondent.

Conclusion

The Adjudicator concluded that the Respondent’s handling of the Complainant’s complaints was inadequate. Their actions fell short of what is required under the Unfair Dismissals Act and the principles of natural justice. While workplace investigations don’t need to be perfect, the Respondent’s response was so lacking that the Complainant was justified in resigning.

The Complainant used the available procedures and gave the Respondent every chance to address her concerns. While some attempts were made to address the bullying and harassment claim, no meaningful action was taken regarding her other complaints.

After careful consideration, the Adjudicator found that the Respondent’s conduct made the Complainant’s continued employment intolerable.

Decision

The Complainant was unfairly dismissed and awarded €40,000 in compensation.

Recommendations for Employers

The Adjudicator highlighted a nearly five-year delay in handling the bullying and harassment complaint, which clearly violated fair procedures.

The Respondent’s approach to the Complainant’s concerns was slow and insufficient, justifying her resignation.

This case underscores the importance of having strong grievance and disciplinary procedures. Employers must ensure they are followed promptly and in accordance with fair procedures.

Deadline to Disclose Misclassification of Employee Tax Status

Last year, Revenue announced a chance for organisations using contractors or self-employed workers to check their payroll records. They need to confirm that all workers’ employment statuses are correctly classified for tax purposes.

The Revenue Commissioners stated that employers can fix payroll tax issues for 2024 and 2025. This applies to genuine classification errors without any interest or penalties.

Employers who acted in good faith, relying on past case law and guidance before the Supreme Court ruling in Revenue Commissioners v Karshan (Midlands) Ltd t/a Domino’s Pizza, are encouraged to use this chance. If they misclassified employees as contractors, they should regularise their tax affairs.

Disclosures must be submitted by Friday, 30 January 2026. All liabilities should be paid in full through REVPAY.

Employers who miss this opportunity will face interest and penalties of up to 100% of the tax owed.

Promoting Respect, Inclusion and Compliance at Work

Stand Up to Bullying Day, which takes place on the last Friday in February, provides an important opportunity for organisations to reflect on the impact bullying can have on individuals, teams, and workplace culture.

For nonprofit organisations where values such as dignity, fairness, and inclusion are often central priorities, creating a respectful and safe workplace is particularly important. While bullying may not always be intentional or immediately visible, its effects can be significant, impacting employee wellbeing, engagement, retention, and overall organisational effectiveness.

Understanding Workplace Bullying

Stand Up to Bullying Day serves as a useful focal point to:

• Raise awareness of what bullying can look like in a workplace setting
• Reinforce expectations around respectful behaviour
• Encourage employees to speak up and support one another.

Workplace bullying can take many forms. In addition to explicit behaviours, it may include more subtle patterns such as exclusion, undermining, persistent criticism, or inappropriate humour. Because individuals may experience and interpret behaviour differently, the focus should be on education, prevention, and early intervention, rather than assigning blame.

A workplace culture where people feel psychologically safe and respected supports collaboration, trust, and long-term organisational sustainability.

What Organisations Can Do

Nonprofit organisations can use Stand Up to Bullying Day to reinforce shared standards of behaviour and promote a positive workplace culture. Practical steps include:

Awareness and Education 

Use the day to share information about what constitutes bullying, the impact it can have, and how employees can safely challenge inappropriate behaviour. This may include internal communications, workshops, or facilitated discussions.

Clear Policies and Reporting Processes 

Take the opportunity to remind employees of existing anti-bullying and dignity at work policies, including how concerns can be raised and what supports are available. Clear, well-communicated processes help build confidence in speaking up.

Manager Training and Accountability 

Managers play a critical role in setting the tone for workplace behaviour. Ensuring they are trained to recognise bullying, address concerns early, and model respectful conduct promotes consistency and trust across teams.

Promoting a Culture of Respect 

Encouraging constructive feedback, collaboration, and recognition of positive behaviours can have a meaningful impact. Small, everyday actions help employees feel valued and supported.

Employment Law Compliance and the Code of Practice

Addressing workplace bullying is not only a cultural priority, it is also a legal responsibility. Employers have a duty under health and safety legislation to protect employees from risks to their health, including psychosocial risks such as bullying.

The Code of Practice for employers and employees on the Prevention and Resolution of Bullying at Work provides practical guidance on how organisations should prevent bullying and respond when concerns arise. While the Code itself does not impose legal obligations, an organisation’s failure to abide by the Code would be admissible in evidence in legal proceedings. The guidance in the Code is also widely used as a benchmark for good practice.

The Code emphasises:

• The importance of preventative measures, including clear policies and awareness-raising
• Early, informal resolution where appropriate
• Fair, timely, and confidential procedures for handling complaints
• Training for managers and employees on their roles and responsibilities.

For nonprofit organisations, ensuring alignment with the Code of Practice helps demonstrate a proactive and compliant approach to promoting positive workplace behaviours. It also reduces the risk of grievances, complaints to external bodies, and potential reputational damage.

A Year-Round Commitment

While Stand Up to Bullying Day is an important reminder, preventing bullying requires ongoing commitment. A respectful workplace supports employee wellbeing, strengthens engagement, and reduces the risk of conflict, absenteeism, and turnover.

Organisations that invest in up-to-date policies and procedures, supported by regular training and clear communication, are best placed to manage this risk and foster positive workplace cultures. Policies must be more than documents, they need to be communicated effectively, consistently applied, and reinforced through ongoing learning and leadership example.

By reviewing policies regularly and providing continuous training for both managers and employees, organisations can ensure that dignity and respect are embedded into everyday practice not just on Stand Up to Bullying Day, but throughout the year.

€64,000 for Dismissal Connected to Disclosure Concerning Employee Health and Safety

Background

The Complainant worked as the Head of Football Operations in the Respondent football club. The Complainant submitted four claims following his dismissal by the Respondent:

• A payment of wages claim for €8,076.92 in unpaid wages.
• Failure by the Respondent to provide terms and conditions of employment in writing.
• Unfair dismissal which is both substantially and procedurally unfair and gave rise to a loss of four weeks wages.
• Penalisation for raising a protected disclosure concerning the health and safety of football players in his charge arising from the medical condition of the manager.

The Complainant was initially threatened with dismissal, was then awaiting dismissal and ultimately was dismissed from his position.

Summary of Complainant’s Case

The Complainant submitted that he was employed as Head of Football Operations with the Respondent from 1 January 2023. He was initially employed on a one-year contract. It was noted that the contract was poorly drafted and was not signed. However, the contract was reused for the following year when the Complainant’s employment rolled over. In November/December 2023, the club was bought by new management, and a new deal was struck with the Complainant for a further two years of employment.  Under a verbal agreement, his salary was due to increase for the first year with an additional increase for the second year. It was noted that there was also a fee schedule regarding transfer fees and prize money.

The Complainant submitted that he never received the terms and conditions of his employment in writing. He did not receive the promised pay increase and accordingly was owed €8,076.92, a shortfall in his wages for the period 1 January 2024 to 11 May 2024 when he was summarily dismissed.

The Complainant submitted that there was a series of managers but after one manager was sacked the Complainant became acting co-manager of the team for a short period. A new manager was appointed and shortly afterwards, the Complainant made a protected disclosure regarding the new manager’s health which was jeopardising player safety. The first protected disclosure was made on 19 April and the second was made on 22 April.

The Complainant submitted that on the first day under the new manager he expressed serious concerns to the team’s owner about the manager’s ability to undertake the responsibilities of the role. He noted that he had heard some rumours but that they were only that, however he told the club’s owner that but that he had witnessed one or two incidents with his own eyes.

The Complainant submitted that he was summarily dismissed after expressing his concerns. He submitted that his dismissal was announced in the paper within 15 minutes of him being told that he was dismissed.

The Complainant acknowledged that redress under the Unfair Dismissals Act is, limited to loss of earnings but noted that the penalisation in this case was severe, there was reputational impact on foot of the penalisation, and that his summary dismissal was a very public matter on a national level but also on a local level where he lived.

The Complainant submitted that it is very clear that the penalisation he suffered was a direct result of his having raised a protected disclosure and included his dismissal; unfair treatment; coercion, intimidation, harassment and ostracisation; discrimination, disadvantage or unfair treatment, harm, including to his reputation, particularly on social media, and financial loss, including loss of business and loss of income.

Summary of Respondent’s Case

The Respondent did not defend their position.

Findings and Conclusions

The Adjudicator acknowledged that the Complainant gave his evidence in a cogent and clear manner and was satisfied that he was a credible witness. In summary, the Complainant made a complaint to the club’s owner, his employer, relating to a disclosure that related to the likelihood that the health and safety of the players was or was likely to be endangered. The Complainant submitted that expressing his concerns resulted directly in his dismissal.  The Adjudicator was satisfied that the issue of the health and safety of the players was brought up with the owner and ruled that this amounted to a protected disclosure under Section 5(3)(d) of the Protected Disclosures Act. As the Complainant was dismissed shortly thereafter without reason and in the absence of any evidence indicating otherwise, the Adjudicator was satisfied that this dismissal resulted wholly or mainly from the employee having made a protected disclosure.  Accordingly, the Adjudicator found that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed from his position with the Respondent.

There was no evidence whatsoever that the Respondent was taking an employment-related decision. No reason for the dismissal was ever provided, no procedures were followed. Therefore, the Adjudicator found that the only logical conclusion was that the Complainant was dismissed for having made a protected disclosure.

Decision

The Adjudicator awarded the complainant redress of €52,629.62 for unfair dismissal, €3,727.36 for failure to provide written terms of employment and compensation of €8,076.92 for breach of his entitlements under payment of wages legislation.

Recommendations for Employers

In this Case, the WRC awarded over €64,000 in compensation after finding that the only logical conclusion was that the Complainant’s dismissal was triggered by his expression of concerns around employee health and safety.

The high level of compensation was notable given that the Complainant had successfully mitigated his loss by securing alternative employment within four weeks of his dismissal. Organisations should note that awards of compensation for employees who suffer a detriment connected to the making of a protected disclosure will not be limited solely to financial loss and consideration may be given to other factors which may include an assessment of whether an award is effective, proportionate or dissuasive.

Updated Code of Practice on Access to Part-Time Working

In January, Alan Dillon, the Minister of State for Small Businesses, Retail, and Employment, signed a revised Code of Practice on Access to Part-Time Working.

The Workplace Relations Commission prepared this updated Code. It offers practical guidance for employers and employees to create part-time arrangements that promote flexible, inclusive, and modern workplaces.

What does this mean for organisations?

Codes of Practice are not legally binding on their own. However, they can be used as evidence against employers in claims of employment rights breaches. In court proceedings, a Code of Practice is admissible. Any relevant provision will be considered important in deciding the case.

As a best practice, organisations should either introduce new policies or review existing ones. This should be done in consultation with employees and their representatives. These policies should support effective access to part-time work and outline how part-time arrangements will function in the organisation.

Managing Annual Leave as the Public Holiday and Summer Seasons Approach

As we move toward the point of the year where public holidays and the summer season come into view, many organisations will notice an increase in annual leave requests. This time of year provides an ideal opportunity for employers to take a proactive approach to managing annual leave, ensuring employees avail of their entitlements while maintaining adequate staffing and operational cover.

For HR teams and line managers alike, forward planning and clear communication are key to ensuring that annual leave is used appropriately throughout the year and does not lead to a large unused portion left outstanding toward year-end.

Encouraging Employees to Take Their Annual Leave

Organisations have a duty of care to maintain, as far as practicable, the health, safety and welfare of their employees. One important aspect of supporting employee wellbeing is ensuring that employees take their annual leave and have sufficient opportunity for rest and recuperation.

A simple but effective measure is to send regular reminders to employees regarding their annual leave balance. Some organisations issue quarterly reminders encouraging employees to review their leave balance and plan time off in advance.

A more targeted approach may involve contacting individual employees where leave balances remain high or where no leave has been booked for the remainder of the leave year. Such correspondence can outline the employee’s remaining entitlement and encourage them to submit leave requests within a specified timeframe.

Legal Considerations

Annual leave entitlements are governed by the organisation of Working Time Act 1997. While employees are entitled to statutory annual leave, the legislation provides that the timing of annual leave is ultimately determined by the employer.

When determining the timing of leave, employers must take into account:

The employee’s opportunities for rest and recreation
The employee’s family responsibilities
The need to consult with the employee.
Organisations must also ensure that employees receive their full statutory annual leave entitlement within the relevant leave year.

Where an employee is unable to take their statutory leave during the leave year, the employer must allow the leave to be carried forward and taken during the first six months of the following leave year.

Employers should also refer to their own internal annual leave policy, which may permit a limited number of days to be carried over into the new leave year.

Managing Increased Leave Requests Around Public Holidays

Demand for annual leave frequently increases around public holidays such as St Patrick’s Day and Easter Monday, when employees often seek to extend the holiday into a long weekend or short break.

Without appropriate planning, a surge in employee requests can create staffing challenges. Organisations may wish to consider:

• Identifying periods where leave demand is likely to be highest
• Encouraging employees to submit requests well in advance
• Setting limits on the number of employees who can be absent at the same time
• Rotating priority for popular leave periods to ensure fairness.
• Taking these steps early can help ensure that operational requirements are maintained while supporting employees’ leave plans.

Establishing Clear Leave Procedures

Clear policies and procedures play an important role in managing annual leave effectively, particularly during busy periods.

Employees should understand:

• How and when leave requests should be submitted
• Any notice requirements for annual leave
• How competing requests will be managed
• Whether requests are handled on a first-come, first-served basis or subject to operational needs.
• Having a structured process helps ensure that decisions are applied consistently and can minimise disputes or misunderstandings.

Supporting Managers to Monitor Leave Balances

Where it is not practical to correspond individually with employees about their leave balances, line managers can raise the issue during regular one-to-one meetings. Discussing annual leave as part of routine check-ins helps ensure employees remain aware of their outstanding entitlement.

Managers may also wish to document these discussions and confirm in writing that employees have been encouraged to schedule their outstanding annual leave. Maintaining records of these communications demonstrates that the organisation has taken reasonable steps to encourage employees to take their statutory leave.

In situations where employees do not submit leave requests by an agreed deadline, organisations may need to allocate leave to ensure the employee takes their statutory entitlement. In such cases, employees must receive at least one month’s written notice of the proposed leave dates.

Maintaining Adequate Staffing Coverage

Alongside managing leave requests, organisations should also consider how best to maintain service delivery and operations during periods of high leave activity. Practical steps may include:

• Cross-training employees so key roles can be covered
• Temporarily redistributing work within teams
• Planning workloads in advance of peak leave periods.
• Forward planning is particularly important for organisations operating in customer-facing or regulated environments, where staffing shortages may have operational implications.
• A Proactive Approach

The start of the public holiday period and the approach of summer provide a useful opportunity for organisations to review their annual leave procedures and ensure that systems are in place to monitor and manage leave balances effectively.

Regular communication with employees, clear policies, and appropriate managerial oversight can help organisations strike the right balance between operational requirements and employees’ entitlement to rest and recreation. Taking a proactive approach now can reduce the risk of leave accumulating toward the end of the year while also supporting employee wellbeing and helping to minimise burnout and workplace stress.

Accountant Wins €85,000 After Dismissal for Raising Spending Concerns

Background

The Respondent was a registered friendly society which provided mutual aid and health cover to public sector workers. The Complainant was recruited into the role of General Manager in August 2022. He commenced employment with the Respondent in September 2022 and was dismissed in September 2023 without notice.

Summary of Complainant’s Case

The Complainant submitted that he had been an accountant since 1989. Before joining the Respondent, he was working as an accountant in the public sector for 22 years. He was appointed to the role after an exhaustive process involving three interviews. Governance had been identified as a key issue the Respondent wanted to improve. The Respondent had traditionally been run by seconded members of the public sector body it served, and the Complainant was the first accountant to take on the role. While he was the senior employee in charge of day-to-day operations of the Respondent, it was ultimately governed by an elected committee of members.

In December 2022, the Respondent held their Christmas party. The Complainant discovered that after the party a tab had been opened in the hotel bar where many of the attendees were staying. He did not think this was appropriate and closed it. In January, he objected to an open bar at a retirement function, but the committee voted to approve it against his wishes.

The Complainant had a performance review in March and nothing adverse was brought up and he was later confirmed in his post when his probation period ended.

The Complainant began raising concerns about the level of expenses associated with meetings. There were a number of committees which oversaw the work of the Respondent, and these were meeting throughout the year. The number of meetings was comparatively higher than they had been in recent years. He began advocating meeting in head office and reducing the number of meetings generally. The head office was in Dublin so meetings there would have also reduced the expense costs associated with Dublin members’ attendance. He was also concerned that expenses were flat rate and unvouched.

The Complainant was also raising his belief that there was a legal requirement to do a five-year evaluation of assets. This would be an independent evaluation carried out by an independent company. The costs of the evaluation were significant and expected to cost in the region of €30,000. It then became an issue that committee members were asserting the Respondent had a derogation. The Complainant saw no evidence of any derogation, and it became an issue with the relevant committee. The Complainant later outlined to the committee by email that they did not have a derogation.

In September 2023, the Complainant received a phone call in the middle of the day requesting him to meet the Chairman and a committee member. They attended the meeting with a letter in their hand. The Complainant was told he had been terminated and given the letter. He asked for a reason, but none was given. The Complainant handed over his laptop and left. He also noted that he was not paid any notice.

Summary of Respondent’s Case

The Complainant was dismissed summarily, and the Respondent had since offered to pay him in lieu of his notice. The Respondent defended its position by noting that the Complainant did not have locus standi to avail of the protections of the Unfair Dismissals Act.

Findings and Conclusions

Date of Dismissal – The Facts

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on the 26th of September 2022, he was employed under a contract of employment which provided that the Respondent would provide the Complainant with three months’ notice of a termination.

The Adjudicator noted that the Complainant was dismissed on the 8th of September 2023 by way of a letter handed to him that day by the Chairman on the Respondent.

Date of Dismissal – The Law

The ‘date of dismissal’ is defined in Section 1 of the Unfair Dismissals Act as the earliest date that would be in compliance with the provisions of the contract of employment.

Date of Dismissal – Findings

The Respondent failed give the Complainant prior notice of termination and the date of dismissal was the date when the contractual notice period would have expired, that being three months from the 8th of September 2023 which would be the 9th of December 2023.

The Dismissal

On the date of dismissal, as defined by the Act, the Complainant was employed by the Respondent for more than one year and the Complainant was not therefore excluded from the protections of the Unfair Dismissals Act. Under the Unfair Dismissals Act, the dismissal of an employee is an unfair dismissal unless, having regard to all the circumstances, there were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal. The burden is on the Respondent to identify substantial grounds, and they have not done so.

The Complainant was unfairly dismissed.

Redress

The Complainant earned €110,000 per annum. He was unemployed for a year and then obtained a role on a lower salary of €70,000. On a plain reading of the figures, he had a significant loss arising from the dismissal at the time of the hearing which came to approximately €130,000. There was an ongoing loss which was harder to quantify.

On the basis that the Complainant’s evidence did not make out sufficient efforts to mitigate his loss, the Adjudicator was of the view that an award of €85,000 was just and equitable in all the circumstances.

Decision

The Adjudicator ruled that the dismissal was unfair and awarded the sum of €85,000 in compensation.

Recommendations for Employers

In this Case, the Complainant had less than one year’s service when he was summarily dismissed by the Respondent which was a nonprofit organisation. Since taking up his role as an accountant with the organisation, the Complainant noted a number of expenditure-related items that he advised the Respondent to review.

While the Respondent sought to defend its position by arguing that the Complainant did not complete the necessary service requirement to avail of the protection of the Unfair Dismissals Act, the Adjudicator noted that the date of dismissal under the legislation is the date when the contractual notice period would have expired. In this case, three months after the alleged date of dismissal.

For nonprofit organisations in particular, cases like this demonstrate how informal employment practices often adopted in good faith or due to limited resources, can create substantial exposure to the risk of legal claims. Assumptions about employee legal entitlements, a lack of documented procedures, or decisions made without following the principles of fair procedures invite the risk of costly WRC claims.

Enhanced Code of Practice on Right to Request Remote Work to be Developed

Minister for Small Business, Retail and Employment Alan Dillon TD, and the Minister for Enterprise, Tourism and Employment Peter Burke have published the statutory review of Ireland’s remote work request provisions under the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023.

The statutory review shows that, when used, the legislation is working effectively in practice, with 94% of employee requests approved, either fully or in part. Organisations also report minimal administrative burden operating the system.

Next steps

Following on from the review, Minister Dillon confirmed he will request the Workplace Relation Commission to revise and strengthen the Code of Practice to:

• provide clearer templates and guidance for employees applying for remote work
• support employers to give comprehensive and transparent reasons for decisions
• clarify the timelines set out in the legislation
• support more structured consultation between employers and employees when considering remote work
• options and promote use of the Workplace Relations Commission mediation services.
• No legislative changes are proposed, as the review found that the legislation is operating effectively and proportionately.

We will monitor the progress of the WRC’s review of the Code of Practice and provide updates on any further developments.

For many nonprofit organisations in Ireland, fixed-term contracts are not just an option, they are a necessity. Driven by project-based work and often dependent on time-bound or uncertain public funding, organisations must balance achieving stated objectives with financial responsibility. While fixed-term contracts can offer flexibility, they also bring a distinct set of HR and employment law challenges that require careful management.

This issue is particularly relevant for organisations operating in an environment where public funding is sometimes unpredictable. Grants may be reduced, delayed, or discontinued entirely, leaving organisations exposed to both operational and legal risks. In these circumstances, fixed-term employees must be carefully considered.

Fixed-Term Employment and Contracts of Indefinite Duration

Fixed-term contracts are commonly used to align staffing with specific funding cycles or project timelines which is a practical and legitimate approach. However, problems can arise when these contracts are repeatedly renewed or where there is ambiguity around the reason for the fixed term.

The Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003 prohibits the issue of two or more fixed-term contracts of employment which exceed four years’ duration without “objective grounds” for renewal. Following four years of fixed-term employment, employees may therefore seek to be made permanent, unless there are objective grounds justifying a further renewal of the contract and not offering a permanent post at that time.

For nonprofit employers, this rule creates an inherent tension between the need to retain experienced staff versus the uncertainty of future funding.

The Funding Challenge

Public funding can be unpredictable. Decisions can be influenced by political priorities, economic conditions, or administrative delays. While organisations may issue fixed-term contracts tied to specific grants, the reality is that employees often continue in their roles beyond the original funding period, particularly if new funding is secured at the last minute.

This ‘rolling contract’ scenario can inadvertently expose organisations to legal risk. If the justification for a fixed-term contract is not clearly documented and consistently applied, the organisation may struggle to later defend its position if challenged.

In addition, employees may develop a reasonable expectation of ongoing employment, especially where renewals have been routine for a number of years. If funding ceases and contracts are not renewed, this scenario often exposes organisations to the risk of an employee claim.

Common HR Risks

Some of the most frequent issues arising from fixed-term contracts include:

Unintentional permanency: Repeated renewals without clear justification can lead to employees asserting their right to a contract of indefinite duration.
Inconsistent contract wording: Lack of clarity around the objective grounds for fixed-term status can undermine legal standing.
Poor communication: employees may not fully understand the temporary nature of their role, leading to dissatisfaction or disputes.
Redundancy exposure: If a role ends due to funding loss, organisations may still face redundancy obligations depending on the length of service.
Best Practice: Managing Fixed-Term Contracts Effectively

To mitigate these risks while maintaining flexibility, organisations should adopt a structured and proactive approach:

Clearly Define Objective Grounds
Each fixed-term contract should explicitly state the reason for its duration, such as linkage to a specific funding allocation or completion of a specific project. This justification must be genuine, documented, and consistently applied.

Monitor Contract Duration and Renewals
Keep accurate records of contract start and end dates and track cumulative service. Establish internal alerts as employees approach key thresholds (e.g., years of continuous service and number of fixed term contracts).

Align Contracts with Funding Realities
Where possible, match contract durations to confirmed funding periods. Avoid extending contracts speculatively without clear justification.

Communicate Transparently
Ensure employees understand the nature of their contract from the outset. Regularly update them on funding situations and the potential implications for their role.

Plan for Different Scenarios
Develop contingency plans for funding changes. Seek advice early to establish any financial exposure and ensure compliance with employment law obligations.

Seek Expert HR Guidance
Given the complexity of employment law in this area, working with an external HR consultancy may be necessary if there is a lack of internal HR expertise within the organisation.

Conclusion

While fixed-term contracts remain a cornerstone of workforce planning in nonprofit sector, their use must be carefully managed to avoid unintended legal consequences. By combining clear documentation, proactive monitoring, and transparent communication, organisations can strike a balance between flexibility and compliance.

‘Volunteer’ Care Worker Awarded €60,000 in Unfair Dismissal Claim

Background:

The Respondent was a registered charity that operated a centre in which the Complainant worked on a voluntary basis. The centre provided residential accommodation, support, assistance and learning opportunities for children and adults with intellectual disabilities.

The Complainant stated that up until December 2018, the Respondent’s staff was made up of long-term care workers (LTCW), short term care workers (STCW), persons described as employees and persons described as volunteers. The Complainant stated there were approximately 450 staff who fell into those categories across the Respondent’s operations. The Complainant described himself as an LTCW having commenced with the Respondent in around 1977. The Complainant maintained that notwithstanding this description, a de facto employment relationship existed and he cited various factors in support of his position.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant stated that he commenced in the Respondent’s centre in or around 1980 and remained attached to that centre until 2018. He outlined his work/role in the Respondent’s centre including as a music therapist, in the areas of physiotherapy, active involvement, construction activities and care work. The Complainant stated that he lived in the centre with his chosen family and worked diligently with the users of the service sometimes up to 72 hours/week. He stated that he was totally committed to his role and the activities he was involved with.

The Complainant stated that various issues related to the Respondent’s governance arrangements arose from 2015. This resulted in a decision on 6 June 2017 to transfer the running of the centre at which he worked to the HSE and to phase out the LTCW model in favour of employed staff.

The Complainant explained that in around 2017 a transition group was established to consider the practicalities for the workers of this change in governance. The Complainant stated that representations were made that LTCWs would be taken on as employees and failing that, would be given assistance in relation to leaving the Respondent, in other words a form of retirement or exit package. In this regard, the Complainant cited various meetings convened at the time, reports and correspondences including a transition document which he completed in November 2018 and on which he stated that he did not wish to be made redundant and reserved all his legal rights.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent outlined its dealings with the Complainant and the other staff in 2018 in relation to the LTCW transition process. In this regard, the Respondent cited a written statement made by the Complainant on 27 November 2018 which indicated that the Complainant never regarded himself as an employee, that he did not ‘have the requisite intention to create legal relations to enter into a contract of employment’ and that post December 2018, he did not wish to transition into a role that was subject to an employment contract.

The Respondent stated that after the LTCW arrangement came to an end on 31 December 2018, the Complainant was offered a volunteer agreement and an LTCW transition plan which he did not accept. It was the position of the Respondent that for the Complainant to avail of statutory employment rights, he must first come within the definition of an employee and that the Complainant did not satisfy the requisite tests. In this regard, the Respondent submitted there was an absence of the requisite mutuality of obligation, there was no contract of service, there never was an intention to create legal relations and the Complainant was never an employee nor ever saw himself as such.

The Respondent further stated that the Complainant was now retired and excluded from any benefit from the Unfair Dismissals Acts or the Redundancy Payments Acts. In addition, the Complainant had made no attempt to mitigate his losses.

Findings and Conclusions:

The preliminary matter of determining the employment status of the Complainant was the central issue of the evidence and submissions since it also determined whether the Complainant had locus standi to bring his complaints and by extension to come within the jurisdiction of the WRC.

The tests for determining employment status include consideration of the degree of control exercised over the worker, whether the person is integrated into the workplace and whether or not a mutuality of obligation existed in terms of the employer having been required to provide work for the employee and the corollary obligation on the employee to complete that work.

The Adjudicator was satisfied that there were numerous indications to determine that the Complainant was an employee. The evidence indicated that he was integrated into the workplace for some 38 years, he was described as an LTCW and from the evidence presented, there was control over the work he did. The Complainant was obliged to comply with the Respondent’s extensive policies including for example its disciplinary procedure which provided for dismissal. For the most part, the same workplace policies applied to LTCWs and employees in the same manner.

As against that, there were a number of factors which did not indicate that there was any employment relationship such as the fact that the Complainant was not paid wages in the usual manner nor was he subject to PAYE tax, he did not receive payslips and was not a member of any pension scheme. Similarly, no evidence was presented that the Complainant’s working hours or leave arrangements were based on any objective criteria or that there was any alignment with statutory provisions. Nor was there any sick leave scheme.

The Adjudicator disregarded the labels given to the relationship by both parties in evidence and determined the matter on the basis of the de facto relationship between the parties. By using this approach, the Adjudicator found that the requisite elements of mutuality of obligation, integration and control existed to establish a contract of employment and the Complainant was therefore entitled to a range of statutory employment rights. In all the circumstances, the Adjudicator ultimately ruled that the Complainant was entitled to bring his complaints to the WRC on the basis that he was employed by the Respondent.

The Complainant was not afforded fair procedures nor was he provided with any specific justifiable reason for the termination of his employment within the terms of Section 6(4) of the Unfair Dismissals Act other than that the role of LTWC was coming to an end which reason was of a general nature and applicable to the Respondent’s service generally. The Complainant was entitled to be appraised in specific terms of the reasons for his dismissal and afforded a fair process to deal with the matter having regard to the requirements of natural justice and the Respondent’s own Disciplinary Procedure.

Decision:

The Adjudicator determined that the Complainant be compensated €60,000 for his loss of earnings arising from the unfair dismissal.

Recommendations for Employers

In this Case, the Complainant succeeded with a claim that his relationship with the Respondent had the requisite elements to establish an employment contract.

The case is interesting as the Complainant’s own evidence revealed that he did not consider himself to be an employee. The Adjudicator disregarded the labels given to the relationship by both parties in evidence and determined the matter on the basis of the de facto relationship between the parties. By using this approach, the Adjudicator found that the requisite elements of mutuality of obligation, integration and control existed to establish a contract of employment and the Complainant was therefore entitled to a range of statutory employment rights.

Although not referred to in the decision, the tests for determining employment status laid down by the Supreme Court in Revenue v Karshan are a good starting point for organisations who need to determine the correct employment status of atypical employment relationships.

New Legislation Update – Protection of Employees (Employers’ Insolvency) (Amendment) Act 2025

The President recently signed the Protection of Employees (Employers’ Insolvency) (Amendment) Act 2025 into law. The legislation requires a commencement order to come into force.

The purpose of the Act is to make changes to the Protection of Employees (Employers’ Insolvency) Act 1984 which sets out pay-related entitlements of employees working for an insolvent employer.

The legislation is designed to ensure that the Insolvency Payments Scheme allows former employees of insolvent organisations to recover monies that are owed to them.

The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment will conduct a comprehensive communications campaign to advise former employees of their potential entitlements in connection with historical claims when this new law is coming into effect.