Employer Resources Newsletter - January 2026

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.

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

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.