Employer Resources Newsletter - July 2025

Neurodiversity is emerging as a critical element of diversity and inclusion efforts. Developing a neurodiverse workplace not only supports the principle of equal opportunities but it can also strengthen innovation, engagement, and business performance. In addition, as businesses continue to compete for talent in a tight labour market, those that prioritise neuroinclusion enjoy the benefit of gaining access to a broader, often underutilised, talent pool.  

Understanding Neurodiversity 

Neurodiversity acknowledges the natural variations in how people think, learn, and process information—encompassing conditions such as autism, ADHD, dyslexia, and dyspraxia. Creating a neurodiverse workplace goes far beyond inclusive hiring. It involves fostering an environment that actively accommodates and values neurodivergent employees. This means providing the resources, understanding, and supports individuals may need to perform at their best. 

While awareness of physical and mental health has grown in recent years, neuroinclusion remains an area that many businesses have yet to fully develop. Bridging the gap between intention and implementation is key. By committing to neuroinclusive practices, employers can ensure that neurodivergent individuals are not only represented but genuinely empowered to succeed. 

Legal Considerations: Disability Discrimination Risks 

Under the Employment Equality Acts, employers must not treat employees differently on the basis of a disability. The employment equality legislation sets out a broad definition of disability which includes “any condition, illness or disease which affects a person’s thought processes, perception of reality, emotions or judgement or which results in disturbed behaviour.” This definition clearly encompasses many neurodiverse conditions. 

The Duty to Provide Reasonable Accommodation 

Once an employer becomes aware of an employee’s disability, they are legally obligated to consider reasonable accommodations. Employers or potential employers must take effective and practical measures to enable the candidate with a disability to fulfil the requirements of the role. This includes enabling the candidate or employee to access employment, to participate and advance in their job or to attend training. Several factors affect the decision on whether a specific accommodation would be deemed reasonable or a disproportionate burden. These include the costs, the size and financial resources of the business, and whether grants or public funding may be available. 

Health and Safety Obligations 

The Health and Safety Authority (HSA) has developed a guide for employers outlining practical steps on accommodating Employees with disabilities. 

Risk assessments should identify any particular risks associated with individual disabilities and the relevant control measures.  

The guidance sets out suggestions around how employers can make the workplace more accessible for employees with disabilities. Practical examples given include, for example: 

• adapting the workplace to make it more accessible for neurodivergent employees (quiet spaces, sound and tactile accommodations) 
• alternative communication applications 
• voice controls where available 
• flexible start and finish times. 

Inclusive Health and Safety 

To develop inclusive health and safety processes, it is good practice to consult those employees who have told their business that they have a disability. These employees know, through their own experiences, how their disability impacts them throughout their lives and what their workplace support needs may be. They will also have insight on the changes or accommodations required to make their workplace inclusive, healthy and safe. 

While the HSA guidance does not impose any legal obligations on employers, employees with disabilities may be able to point to non-compliance with the guidance as evidence in support of a workplace claim. 

Practical Steps 

Action steps to develop a more neurodiverse workplace could include: 

• review processes on attraction, recruitment, onboarding, accommodations and career development to consider neurodivergent candidates and employees 
• raise awareness of neurodiversity and empower employees to educate themselves with relevant resources 
• consider training for customer-facing employees so they know how to serve neurodivergent clients and customers 
• assess the physical working environment and adaptation for neurodivergent employees (quiet spaces, sound and tactile accommodations). 

The Strategic Value of a Neuroinclusive Workplace 

Building a neuroinclusive workplace could be a strategic advantage for your business. Employers who understand and support the unique needs of neurodivergent employees foster a workplace culture of innovation, empathy, and resilience. 

Integrating neurodiversity into broader diversity and inclusion goals enables all employees—regardless of neurological makeup—to contribute fully and thrive. In doing so, your business cultivates a more engaged, productive, and future-ready workforce.

Adare is a team of expert-led Employment Law, Industrial Relations and best practice Human Resource Management consultants. If your business 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 business. 

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

info@adarehrm.ie | www.adarehrm.ie  

WRC Finds Dismissal of Social Care Worker Unfair Due to Procedural Deficiencies — €12,500 Awarded 

Complainant’s View 

Before the hearing, the employee claimed the dismissal was unfair due to: (1) procedural flaws, (2) a protected disclosure, and (3) trade union activity. 

The employee said the employer failed to follow its own policies and used an inconsistent process. Concerns raised between June 2021 and his dismissal were addressed separately and not through the same procedure. 

The employee reported misconduct by his line manager and area manager to senior management, including a medication error and document removal, this was also reported to HIQA. A formal protected disclosure was submitted on 7 November, but no feedback was received. 

The employee was active in union activities, including recruitment and discussions with the employer about workplace issues. 

The employee also referred to a minor car accident and a related allegation of psychological abuse, which he said was false, not properly investigated, and part of a campaign to discredit him. The incident was reported to HIQA. 

Alongside colleagues, the employee had raised multiple grievances about the line manager, including record falsification and misuse of a Performance Improvement Plan. The employee argued the dismissal ignored mitigating factors and stemmed from false allegations. 

The employee sought reinstatement as a Social Care Worker. 

Complainant’s Evidence: 

The employee said there was no proper investigation, no policy breach identified, and his personality was unfairly scrutinised. The appeal process contained errors, including an unsigned and undated letter. 

Under cross-examination, the employee said the allegations were fabricated in retaliation for a complaint he made. Though the employee received statements, none identified a breached policy. The employee claimed bias, as the investigator was someone he had previously complained about. 

The employee noted a 19-day delay in raising allegations and said he was only invited to a disciplinary hearing, not an investigation. The employee had already finished work on the day of the alleged incident, and staffing levels were adequate. 

The employee said the disciplinary hearing served as the investigation and included inaccurate records. The employee wasn’t told an apology might have resolved the issue and wasn’t allowed to address key concerns. 

The employer allegedly failed to follow normal procedures, delayed interviews, introduced unrelated allegations, and exaggerated a November incident. The employee viewed this as a targeted attempt to justify gross misconduct. 

The employee said the dismissal ended his career in social care, as CORU requirements prevented him from transferring his skills. The employee remained at home until August 2022 and secured new employment in February 2023. 

Respondent’s View 

The employer denied that the employee was unfairly dismissed. 

The employee was employed as a Social Care Worker from 8 January 2007 to 31 January 2022. The employer stated the dismissal followed serious allegations made against the employee, arising from comments allegedly made on 5 November 2021: referring to service users as "still autistic" and saying "not my monkey, not my circus" when an alarm was raised. A colleague reported these remarks on 24 November. 

The employee was suspended on 27 November 2021. A disciplinary process under the Corrective Action Policy was initiated. The employee was notified of the allegations, provided with relevant documentation, and invited to a hearing on 14 January 2022. The employee attended but was unaccompanied. A written record of the meeting was kept and shared. 

On 31 January 2022, the Operations Director confirmed the dismissal. The allegations were upheld, and the employee was found to have breached the Code of Professional Conduct and the Equal Opportunities and Diversity Policy. The decision cited the seriousness of the environment and the services provided, concluding the comments were derogatory and discriminatory. 

The appeal was heard in February 2022 by the CEO, accompanied by an HR Consultant. The employee was represented by a union official. On 4 April 2022, the original decision was upheld. 

The employer submitted that all procedures complied with the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, s6(4)(b) and s6(7), including informing the employee of the allegations, allowing responses, providing representation, and ensuring impartiality. 

The employer relied on precedents confirming that a dismissal is fair if it falls within the range of responses open to a reasonable employer. It also cited the Code of Practice on Disciplinary Procedures (S.I. No. 146/2000) and key case law to support its position. 

Witnesses, including two Area Managers, the CEO, Operations Directors, and HR personnel, confirmed the nature of the investigation and the disciplinary procedures. They described the working environment, the seriousness of the allegations, and the reasoning behind the decision. 

The witnesses acknowledged that the employee had raised grievances and concerns about workplace issues and procedures, including a potential medication error, but maintained that these were investigated or unrelated to the conduct leading to dismissal. 

The employer stated that the employee's comments were inappropriate, unprofessional, and incompatible with the values required in the role. The penalty of dismissal was considered proportionate given the nature of the misconduct. 

The employer concluded that the dismissal was justified based on misconduct, and the process followed was fair, reasonable, and compliant with legal and procedural requirements. 

Findings and Conclusions 

The dismissal of the employee was not in dispute. The only matter for determination was whether that dismissal was fair within the meaning of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977. 

The employee alleged procedural unfairness and failure to consider mitigating factors. While later claims were made regarding penalisation for union activity and a protected disclosure, no compelling evidence was provided to support a causal link between those matters and the dismissal. Accordingly, the dismissal was assessed primarily on procedural and substantive grounds. 

The employer asserted that dismissal was based on conduct, relying on s6(4)(b) of the Act. The key allegations concerned two remarks made by the employee—“they are still autistic” and “not my monkey, not my circus”—and the claim that the employee left while an alarm was sounding. 

However, significant procedural deficiencies were identified. No individual took responsibility for classifying the comments as gross misconduct. The decision appeared to rely on general policy, without analysis or accountability. There was no preliminary screening process, and neither the complainant nor the employee was interviewed during the investigation. 

The disciplinary hearing functioned as both investigation and adjudication, undermining procedural fairness. The original complainant was not interviewed. Key information, including interview notes and source material, was not shared with the employee prior to the hearing. Additionally, a witness with a prior grievance filed against them by the employee provided central evidence without this conflict being disclosed to the decision-maker. 

The employer’s concern that the employee left while an alarm was sounding was also not sufficiently contextualised—the employee had already ended the shift and handed over to a full team. 

These failings cumulatively rendered the process procedurally flawed. The dismissal was therefore found to be unfair. 

Reinstatement was not considered appropriate due to the evident breakdown in relations. The employee secured alternative employment in February 2023, after limited efforts to find work from August 2022. A compensatory award of €12,500 was deemed fair and proportionate. 

Decision  

In accordance with Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977–2015, the adjudicator was required to determine the complaint and, where appropriate, grant redress under Section 7 of the 1977 Act. 

Having considered all written and oral evidence, the adjudicator found that the employee had been unfairly dismissed. The employer was directed to pay the employee €12,500 in compensation for lost earnings, which was deemed just and equitable in the circumstances. 

Recommendations for Employers 

1. Ensure Transparency and Fairness in Disciplinary Procedures-Disciplinary processes must be grounded in natural justice and fair procedures. Employers should conduct thorough investigations, clearly communicate all allegations to the employee in advance, and specify who is responsible for each decision throughout the process. 
2. Maintain Documentation and Rationale for All Disciplinary Actions- Every stage of a disciplinary process should be supported by clear, contemporaneous records. Decision-makers must document the evidence relied upon, the reasoning behind conclusions, and how those align with internal policies. This is essential for accountability and legal defensibility. 
3. Implement and Follow Consistent Preliminary Assessment Procedures- Before launching a full disciplinary process, employers should apply a consistent screening or preliminary assessment to determine whether a formal investigation is warranted. Skipping this step can undermine the credibility and fairness of the entire process. 

Pregnancy Loss (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2025  

The Pregnancy Loss (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2025, currently at Committee Stage in the Seanad provides for a period of paid leave consequent upon the loss of a pregnancy and extends protection against unfair dismissals. If enacted, the Bill will provide employees with a statutory right to five working days paid leave following a pregnancy loss, subject to certification by a registered medical practitioner. A separate entitlement of two and a half working days’ paid leave would apply to the parent of the pregnancy loss. This leave would be available from the first day of employment and would apply outside of existing sick leave, maternity leave or parental leave entitlements. Any purported termination of employment, suspension, or notice of termination whilst on this leave would be void.  

Protection of Employees (Employers' Insolvency) (Amendment) Bill 2025 ("insolvency bill")  

The Protection of Employees (Employers' Insolvency) (Amendment) Bill 2025, currently at Second Stage in the Dail, provides new protections for employees where their employer ceases trading without formally winding up, leaving employees without access to statutory insolvency protections. If enacted, the Bill will provide employees with access to the Social Insurance Fund in cases where their employer ceases trading but does not formally enter liquidation, receivership or examinership  

The Bill proposes a notification process for impacted employees: under the proposed framework, an employee who is owed pay or other entitlements may serve a formal notice on the employer. If the employer does not respond or settle the outstanding amounts within eight weeks, the employee may apply to the Minister to have the employer deemed insolvent for the purposes of the 1984 Act. Where the Minister is satisfied that the employer is no longer operating and that the employee’s claim remains unpaid, the employee may access the state’s insolvency scheme in the same manner as if formal insolvency proceedings had occurred.   

The Employment (Contractual Retirement Ages) Bill 2025  

The Employment (Contractual Retirement Ages) Bill 2025, has completed the Third Stage in the Dail. If enacted, the Bill will impact on employees with clauses in their contracts of employment, which oblige them to retire at an age below the state pension age (currently 66 years old). It permits but does not require an employee to retire at contractual retirement age, if less than pensionable age. In order to avail of this protection, the employee must notify their employer in writing that they do not consent to retire at the contractual retirement age: where an employer receives such notification they may not enforce the contractual retirement age where the employee is less than the pensionable age unless the retirement of the employee concerned is objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary  

Failure by an employer to provide an employee with a reasoned written reply will amount to an offence for which an employer shall be liable on summary conviction to a class A fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both.