Employer Resources Newsletter - February 2026

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: 

1. 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. 

2. 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. 

3. 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. 

4. 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. 

Adare is a team of expert-led Employment Law, Industrial Relations, and best practice Human Resource Management consultants. If your organisation needs advice, support, or guidance about compliance requirements or any HR issues, please contact Adare by calling (01) 561 3594 or emailing info@adarehrm.ie to learn what services are available to support your organisation.

Dublin Office: (01) 561 3594 | Cork Office: (021) 486 1420 | Shannon Office: (061) 363 805

info@adarehrm.ie | www.adarehrm.ie

€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.