Employer Resources Newsletter - July 2026

When Volunteers Become Employees: A HR Risk Every Nonprofit Should Know

Volunteers are the lifeblood of many charities and community organisations. Their commitment and willingness to give their time make invaluable contributions to the communities they serve. However, the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) is often called upon to examine whether a relationship that appears to be voluntary is in reality an employment relationship.

In one particularly notable case, a charity was ordered to pay €60,000 in compensation after a long-serving volunteer care worker was found to have been an employee who had been unfairly dismissed.

The Facts Matter More Than the Description

One of the most striking aspects of this case was that the individual himself did not consider that he was an employee. The organisation also consistently maintained that he was a volunteer.

Despite this, the WRC looked beyond the terminology used by both parties and examined the practical reality of the working relationship. The decision reinforces a long-established principle in employment law: simply calling someone a volunteer does not make them a volunteer.

Instead, what matters is how the relationship functions in practice.

What Made the Difference?

The Complainant had worked with the organisation for almost 40 years in a residential care setting, carrying out extensive care duties and working long hours. While he was not paid a conventional salary or treated as an employee for tax purposes, the Adjudicator found that several key characteristics of employment were present.

These included:

• He was fully integrated into the organisation's operations.
• The organisation exercised significant control over how he carried out his role.
• He was required to comply with the organisation's policies and disciplinary procedures, including procedures that could result in dismissal.
• There was an ongoing expectation that he would provide services, while the organisation provided accommodation and met many of his living needs.

Taken together, these factors established the necessary elements of an employment relationship, despite the absence of a written employment contract.

Why This Matters for Nonprofit Organisations

Many nonprofit organisations rely on volunteers who give generously of their time, sometimes over many years. As programmes develop and organisations grow, volunteer roles can gradually evolve into structured, ongoing positions without anyone recognising that the legal risk has changed.

This case demonstrates that organisations cannot rely solely on volunteer agreements or internal terminology. If the day-to-day reality resembles employment, statutory employment rights may arise.

And as this case demonstrates, the financial consequences can be significant. The organisation in question faced an award of €60,000 for unfair dismissal, together with compensation for failing to provide written terms of employment.

Practical Steps to Reduce Risk

Organisations should regularly review volunteer arrangements to ensure they remain genuinely voluntary. Consider the following questions:

• Is the volunteer free to choose when and whether to volunteer?
• Is there an expectation that they must attend or perform specific duties?
• How much direction and supervision is exercised?
• Are they integrated into the organisation in the same way as employees?
• Do organisational policies, particularly disciplinary procedures, apply in the same way as they do for employees?
• Are volunteers receiving benefits that extend beyond reimbursement of genuine out-of-pocket expenses?

The more ‘yes’ answers there are, the greater the need to review the arrangement.

A Good Time for a Volunteer Audit

Volunteer programmes are an essential part of the nonprofit sector, but they deserve the same governance and oversight as any other aspect of HR.

A periodic review of volunteer arrangements, agreements and management practices can help ensure that the organisation's intentions are reflected in reality. It can also identify where a role has evolved to the point where an employment contract may be the more appropriate option.

Getting this right protects both the organisation and the individuals who generously contribute their time and skills.

If you are unsure whether a volunteer role could give rise to employment rights, seek advice before making changes to the arrangement or ending the relationship. A proactive review is far less costly than defending an employment claim after the event.

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

Informal Pay Discussions Lead to Employee Equal Pay Claim

Background:

The Complainant alleged she had been discriminated against by the Respondent in relation to equal pay.  She stated a male colleague got a promotion for the same job in a different depot, but she did not receive the same pay as her male colleagues even though she had longer service with the company. She alleged that the difference in treatment was an equal pay issue related to her gender.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant stated her boss was promoted and the Deputy Manager position came up which her boss encouraged her to apply for. She confirmed she worked 28 hours and her boss stated it was full-time hours and he said the salary was €39-40K. She successfully applied for the position.

The Complainant stated during the interview she was asked by the Respondent how many children she had and that the job started in September. She stated she asked the person in HR regarding her new pay rate, and she did not get the new salary until October 2022. The Depot Manager met her, and he said her pay scale would be €31K and if working full-time on the current rate and that they were giving her 10% for taking on this new role. She confirmed that took her salary to €34K and she spoke to her male colleague in another depot who received €39K for working in the same role.

The Complainant stated she had more experience and was there longer than her male colleague. She also stated that her male colleague in Dublin got over €39K. She stated that if she had known that the additional increase linked to the job promotion was 10%, she would not have gone for the job. She stated she was always told it would be €39K. She stated she was not taking it then on that basis and went back to the original role and rate.

The Complainant stated she did the job from September to October and was paid the new rate for that time.

The Respondent referred to an employee pay plan document. The Respondent stated it was a detailed document to break down salary.  The Respondent stated that salary promotions were based on 10% increases. The Complainant stated both people went for the job at the same time, herself and her colleague so both should be paid the same. She stated she was always told the increase for the new role was €39K and never 10%.

The Complainant stated she lodged a grievance based on the pay she received. She stated she did not mention anything about an interview at the grievance as she got the interview. She stated she felt the grievance was about her pay which was the basis of her claim.

The Complainant stated a person in HR invited her to a meeting about her grievance. She stated the key was that her manager told her when giving her the job that her salary was €39K and not a 10% increase which was then offered to her.  She stated she left that meeting saying she would contact her advisors. She stated she did not go back to work after that and put in her complaint to the WRC.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent stated that the Complainant made a complaint that she did not receive equal pay when she was promoted to the Assistant Depot Manager (ADM) role, and that she was paid a different rate of remuneration on the ground of gender.

The Respondent denied that it had discriminated against the Complainant on the grounds of gender or at all. It was the Respondent’s position that:

1. the comparators chosen by the Complainant were not engaged in ‘like work’; and
2. any differences in remuneration between the Complainant and the comparators were justified on grounds other than gender.

The Respondent stated the burden of proof was on the Complainant to establish, on the balance of probabilities, the primary facts on which she relied in seeking to raise a presumption of unlawful discrimination.

The Respondent submitted that the Complainant failed to discharge the burden, most significantly, in failing to identify a comparator who was performing like work.

The Respondent further submitted that she had not raised a presumption that the Respondent treated her less favourably than an appropriate comparator, nor that the reason she was not afforded the same rate of remuneration was on the ground of gender.

The Complainant pointed to a colleague in two other depots as her comparators. The Respondent referred to her complaint form which submitted that…. ‘At the same time, I got my promotion, my colleague (male) in another depot got the same promotion in his depot and was awarded more money than me (the figure I was quoted) and also a colleague in another depot doing the same role as me is on more money (the figure I was quoted). I have more years’ employment than both these colleagues in this company.’

The Respondent submitted that these employees were not engaged in ‘like work’, having regard to the responsibilities and different structures of those depots. It was further submitted that the reasons for a difference in remuneration were clearly based on grounds other than gender.

The Respondent submitted that the Complainant did not perform the same work, similar work or equal work to the comparators she identified. It submitted that her role was not interchangeable with either of those comparators, having regard to the size of their respective depots, fleets, employees and additional responsibilities associated with those roles. The Respondent stated there were significant differences between the work and responsibilities associated with the other ADM roles.

The Respondent submitted that the Complainant’s work was not equal in value to the work performed by the comparators, having regard to their responsibility and working conditions.

Findings and Conclusions:

The Adjudicator noted throughout that the Complainant advanced an equal pay claim, and not a complaint of discrimination in relation to the interview or promotion itself.

In this case, the Complainant made a case that she did not receive equal pay when she was promoted to the ADM role, and that she was paid a different rate of remuneration on the ground of gender comparable to her other colleagues who undertook this role at other locations who were both male.

The Adjudicator found on the balance of probabilities, the primary facts from which the Complainant relied in seeking to raise a presumption of unlawful discrimination was met and it was therefore the responsibility of the Respondent to prove the contrary.

The Respondent denied that it had discriminated against the Complainant on the grounds of gender or at all. It was the Respondent’s position that:

1. the comparators chosen by the Complainant were not engaged in ‘like work’; and
2. any differences in remuneration between the Complainant and the comparators were justified on grounds other than gender.

In particular, the Respondent stated that it was an initial error to have indicated a salary to the Complainant and instead she should have only received 10% increase on her current rate of pay for the promotion which was they say their custom and practice.

It was the case that she was told this initial salary rate, and this led her to realise that her comparators were on this salary, and she was to receive less if she took this promotion which ultimately, she then refused. She did not pursue a formal grievance internally.

The Adjudicator found that the work of her comparators was like work and that the differences in the renumeration between the Complainant and her comparators was not justified on any grounds other than gender.

Decision:

The Adjudicator ordered the Respondent to pay the Complainant compensation of €10,000 as a just and equitable redress for the discriminatory treatment she experienced.

Recommendations for Employers

For organisations, this decision is a timely reminder of the changes coming in under the forthcoming EU Pay Transparency Directive. As employees will have greater access to pay information and clearer rights to compare remuneration, any discrepancies in pay are far more likely to be identified and challenged. Organisations should therefore ensure that pay structures are consistent, objectively justified, and clearly communicated as reliance on informal assurances or pay practices will be increasingly difficult to defend.

New Retirement Rules Now in Effect

The Employment (Contractual Retirement Ages) Act 2025 came into effect on the 29th of June 2026, introducing new obligations for organisations that have contractual retirement ages below the State pension age (currently 66).

Under the new legislation, eligible employees can formally notify their employer that they do not agree to retire at their contractual retirement age where that age is below the State pension age.

What Does This Mean for organisations?

Now that the legislation is in force, organisations should review their retirement arrangements to ensure they comply with the new requirements and are prepared to manage requests from employees who wish to continue working.

Areas to review include:

• Contractual retirement ages and retirement policies.
• Employee handbooks, policies and procedures to reflect the new statutory notification process.
• Having a clear, fair and consistent process for considering requests to work beyond the contractual retirement age.
• Understanding when a contractual retirement age can be objectively justified if an organisation decides to require an employee to retire.
• Ensuring HR teams and line managers understand their responsibilities under the new legislation.

As employees become more aware of their new rights, organisations can expect greater scrutiny of retirement decisions. Reviewing your policies and procedures now will help ensure requests are managed fairly, consistently and in line with the new legal requirements.

Adare’s Gender Pay Gap Reporting - Preferential Rates for Nonprofit Organisations

Reporting on the gender pay gap is not straightforward. A considerable amount of data must be gathered, analysed, and produced in a detailed report along with the actions to be taken after the report has been published.

Adare Trusted People Partners understand the pain points and potential pitfalls organisations face and offer a solution that:

• Analyses your organisation’s pay data
• Identifies pay disparities and provides clear pay insights
• Prepares your organisation’s gender pay gap report in a format that is ready for publication.

Contact us today to learn more about our preferential rates for nonprofit organisations, by calling (01) 561 3594 or emailing info@adarehrm.ie.