Employer Resources Newsletter - June 2026

Gender Pay Gap Reporting Check-in: Five Months to Publication

For many organisations across the nonprofit sector, June marks a critical deadline in the gender pay gap reporting cycle. Following the reduction of the headcount threshold to organisations with 50 or more employees in 2025, many nonprofits are now either preparing their second gender pay gap report or undertaking the exercise for the first time.

Gender pay gap reporting compliance requirements are also set to change in 2026. It is expected that organisations within scope will be required to publish their reports on a centralised Government reporting portal, increasing transparency and making reports more accessible to employees, funders, regulators, media and the wider public. As a result, organisations should view gender pay gap reporting not simply as a compliance exercise, but as an important component of their governance, people strategy and public accountability.

And with the publication deadline shifting to November since 2025, organisations now have just five months to complete their calculations, analyse the results, develop an accompanying narrative and publish their report.

June Priorities: Choosing a Snapshot Date and Preparing Your Data

The first key decision for organisations is selecting a snapshot date during June 2026. All gender pay gap calculations will be based on the number of employees who are employed on that chosen date, with remuneration data gathered for the preceding 12-month period.

Although the reporting deadline may appear some distance away, organisations should begin preparing immediately. Delays in gathering and validating payroll data can significantly compress the time available for analysing results and preparing the narrative that must accompany the published report.

Before commencing calculations, organisations should ensure they can accurately identify:

• Employees employed on the chosen snapshot date;
• Ordinary pay and bonus remuneration received during the relevant reporting period;
• Benefits-in-kind received by employees;
• Working hours for each employee;
• Employees who worked part-time or were employed on temporary contracts during the reporting period.

Early verification of payroll and HR data can help avoid issues later in the process when reporting deadlines become more pressing.

Understanding the Reporting Requirements

Once the snapshot date has been selected and the relevant data gathered, organisations must calculate a range of prescribed metrics, including:

• Mean and median hourly gender pay gaps;
• Mean and median bonus pay gaps;
• The proportion of male and female employees receiving bonuses;
• The proportion of male and female employees receiving benefits-in-kind;
• Gender representation across pay quartiles;
• Gender pay gaps for part-time employees and employees on temporary contracts where applicable.

In addition to publishing these figures, organisations must provide an explanation of any gender pay gaps identified and outline the measures being taken to address them.

The Importance of Early Analysis

For many nonprofit organisations, the most valuable part of the reporting process is not the calculation itself but the analysis that follows.

The publication of reports on a centralised Government portal in 2026 means stakeholders will have greater visibility of reported outcomes and will be able to compare organisations more easily. As a result, leadership teams should allow sufficient time to understand the factors driving any gender pay gap before publication.

A gender pay gap does not necessarily indicate unequal pay for equal work. In many cases, reported gaps arise from workforce composition, occupational segregation, seniority distribution, working patterns or recruitment trends. Understanding these factors is essential to developing a credible and accurate narrative.

Organisations that leave analysis until late in the process may find themselves struggling to explain results that attract scrutiny from employees, board members, funders or the public.

Challenges for the Nonprofit Sector

Many nonprofit organisations operate with limited HR and payroll resources, making gender pay gap reporting particularly demanding. Smaller organisations may not have dedicated people analytics capability or sophisticated reporting systems.

However, the reporting process can also provide valuable insights into workforce demographics, progression opportunities and recruitment practices. Organisations that use the exercise as an opportunity to review workforce data often identify areas where targeted interventions can improve diversity, inclusion and employee engagement.

Is Your Gender Pay Gap Report on Track?

With the November publication deadline fixed and the June snapshot period now underway, organisations should already be planning their reporting timetable.

Key questions for leadership teams include:

• Has a snapshot date been selected?
• Is payroll and workforce data ready for analysis?
• Who will be responsible for calculating and validating the required metrics?
• Has sufficient time been allocated to analyse the results?
• Is there a plan for developing the narrative and action measures that will accompany publication?
• Has senior leadership and the board been briefed on likely reporting outcomes?

Looking beyond the current reporting cycle, employers should also be mindful that further changes are on the horizon. Ireland is expected to transpose the EU Pay Transparency Directive on a phased basis later this year, introducing a range of new obligations relating to pay transparency, employee information rights and gender pay gap reporting. While the precise details of implementation remain to be confirmed, the Directive requires more detailed gender pay gap reporting by ‘category of worker’ performing the same work or work of equal value and increase scrutiny of pay practices across organisations.

As a result, this year's reporting exercise can be viewed as more than a standalone compliance obligation. The work undertaken now to improve data quality, understand workforce demographics and analyse the drivers of any gender pay gap will help organisations prepare for a more demanding pay transparency framework in future reporting cycles.

How Adare’s Gender Pay Gap Service Helps

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.

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

€16,000 Award in Equal Pay Claim on Ground of Age

Background:

The Complainant claimed that he was discriminated against in a number of ways including failure by the Respondent to provide equal pay for equal work.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent from March 2015 until his dismissal in December 2023. At the time of dismissal, he was 68 years old and earning €16.48 p/hr working a 20-hour week.

It was the Complainant’s evidence that upon reaching the age of 65, the Respondent encouraged him to remain in his role and extended his employment through a series of fixed-term contracts, with the understanding that he would be permitted to continue until the age of 70. The Complainant referred at the time to the newly announced Flexible State Pension Scheme which would have allowed him to receive €315 per week if he deferred receipt of his State pension until he reached 70 years of age.

Despite this, he was informed in December 2022 via Microsoft Teams that ‘it’s company policy that you have to be let go,’ which came as a shock given his recent positive performance review and prior discussions about continuing employment.

During his final year, the Complainant covered multiple regions. In October 2023, the Respondent hired a younger employee who assumed responsibility for some of these areas.

It was the Complainant’s evidence that he was paid €32,500 annually when working full-time, while younger colleagues performing similar duties were paid more. The Complainant provided two examples of one colleague earning €39,500 per annum and another earning €38,000.

The Respondent claimed the pay disparity was due to qualifications. However, the Complainant held relevant certifications including Health and Safety Management, First Aid, CPR, and Dignity and Respect at Work training.

Despite denying unequal pay, the Respondent increased the Complainant’s salary to €34,000 and issued a back payment of €4,453.60. In correspondence dated December 2023, the Respondent dismissed his concerns, citing their flexibility in extending his employment beyond the contractual retirement age.

It was the Complainant’s evidence that he had a strong passion for his work and genuine care for the individuals attending his stroke support groups. He believed his dismissal and the pay disparity were discriminatory on the grounds of age.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

It was the Respondent’s evidence that the Complainant transferred to the Respondent under TUPE in January 2020. It was submitted the Complainant’s new contract was more favourable, including higher pay, pension, life cover, and other benefits until age 65.

Upon discovering his date of birth, the Respondent noted the Complainant would reach retirement age in March 2020. To accommodate his wish to continue working, he was offered a one-year fixed-term contract at €16 p/hr for 37 hours per week, which he accepted.

Due to COVID-19, the Complainant requested to stay on, and a second fixed-term contract was agreed for March 2021 to February 2022, with a pay increase to €17 p/hr.

In 2022, a strategic review introduced new roles requiring higher qualifications and set salary ranges for new hires. The Complainant was informed that his final working day would be 31 December 2023. Meetings in October 2023 confirmed this, and retirement planning support was offered.

On 18 December 2023, the Complainant raised pay concerns. The Respondent stated there was no underpayment and explained that new hires had expanded roles and qualifications. As a goodwill gesture, a back payment was made.

The Respondent maintained all extensions were voluntary, mutually agreed, and based on operational needs and the Complainant’s request to work beyond retirement age.

It was the Respondent’s evidence that in early 2022, while a new service model requiring different skills was being developed, the Complainant requested to continue working. A further fixed-term contract was agreed to the end of 2022 on the same terms, as his role did not include new duties.

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

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

In November 2022, the Complainant proposed working until age 70 for financial reasons. The Respondent refused, citing prior extensions beyond retirement age and the new structure requiring different qualifications. The Respondent confirmed the final extension and documented this in writing to ensure transparency.

It was the Respondent’s evidence that on 18 December 2023, the Complainant emailed HR claiming unequal pay among Stroke Coordinators. HR replied on 19 December, confirming no underpayment had occurred.

The Respondent explained that since late 2022, new roles required higher qualifications and carried a broader scope, which justified a higher salary range. However, upon cross examination, the Respondent’s witness did not know what the exact details of the role or the responsibilities that allowed for the Complainant and the named comparators to be paid differently. It was her evidence that there was no objectively justifiable reason why the Complainant was paid €32,000 per annum when new entrants were being paid €34,000.

The Respondent noted that one comparator was hired for a different role that attracted a higher salary but accepted that the comparator stayed on the higher salary when she reverted to a full time Co-Ordinator role. The objective justification for paying the comparator a higher salary than the Complainant had therefore lapsed.

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

Findings and Conclusions:

It was noted that no evidence was presented on behalf of the Respondent to support its objective justification for paying the two identified comparators a higher wage. While there was reference to the role requiring a third-level qualification and a broadened job description to justify a higher salary, no documentary evidence was presented to distinguish this role from the Complainant’s role.

A job advertisement for a Patient Support Services Co-Ordinator from around September 2022 was presented. It was the Complainant’s evidence, when asked about this being the standard job description since 2022, that he was unaware of it because he ‘had the job’ and was ‘not issued with a job description.’ It is noted that job descriptions for Stroke Group Co-Ordinator existed in 2020 and 2022, but none was presented for 2023. The Complainant further stated that upon reviewing the list of duties, he was carrying out all of them.

The Adjudicator noted correspondence that amounted to a clear acknowledgment that the Complainant was paid differently from other team members carrying out like work. The Complainant had therefore discharged the burden of proof that he carried out like work.

The justification of full-time versus part-time hourly paid employees was particularly noteworthy, given that the Complainant sought to continue working 37 hours per week until he was given an ultimatum in November 2022: either accept a 20-hour contract for one year, a 37-hour contract for six months, or no further contract would be offered.

Furthermore, no statistical data was provided in evidence, despite references to benchmarking and pay reviews by the Respondent, to justify the different rates of pay for Stroke Group Co-Ordinators. No evidence was presented from either of the named comparators or any other Stroke Group Co-Ordinators regarding their duties, academic qualifications, organisational experience, IT or project skills, as referenced by the Respondent. Neither was evidence presented of any Co-Ordinators paid the same hourly rate as the Complainant.

Finally, it was noted that the Respondent offered an ‘adjustment’ to the Complainant’s final salary in the sum of €4,453.60, applied in the week ending 29 December 2023. It was noted as ‘back pay’ on his payslip. An email from the Respondent stated that this ‘back pay’ increased the Complainant’s wages to a ‘full-time equivalent of €34,000 effective January 2022.’ While this may have been a goodwill gesture, it was an open offer, effectively admitting that his colleagues earned a higher hourly wage of €17.67 compared to the Complainant’s €16.48 per hour in 2022.

Consequently, the Adjudicator found there was no evidence of objective justification on the part of the Respondent as to why the Complainant was treated less favourably by being paid a lower hourly rate for the like work he carried out with the two valid named comparators.

For the reasons outlined above, the Adjudicator found the Complainant was discriminated against by the Respondent in his complaint under the equal pay provisions of the Employment Equality Act.

Decision:

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

Recommendations for Employers:

In this Case, the Complainant had substantial experience in his role and claimed that he was paid less than newer and younger recruits. While equal pay claims typically involve comparators with seniority, experience or length of service being paid more than colleagues doing like work, this complaint raised the opposite. In this instance, the Complainant, who held significant experience in a role he had worked in since March 2015 claimed he was paid less than new recruits.

As the Respondent did not present sufficient evidence to support its argument that there was objective justification for paying the two younger comparators a higher wage, the Adjudicator ruled that the pay disparity was discriminatory on the grounds of age.

Equal pay claims are relatively rare but with increasing pay transparency measures set to be introduced, it is likely there will be a corresponding rise in equal pay claims when the Pay Transparency Directive is fully transposed into domestic law. Organisations should therefore consider carrying out risk assessments to identify any pay disparities between employees carrying out like work that lack objective justification.

Pay Transparency Deadline Missed

Minister for Children, Disability and Equality, Norma Foley recently confirmed in response to parliamentary questions that Ireland will fail to transpose the EU Pay Transparency Directive into domestic legislation before the 7 June 2026 deadline.

While the Directive itself becomes effective across the European Union this month, the Irish legislative framework that will govern how these obligations operate in practice is still being developed. Although this creates a degree of uncertainty for employers, it should not be viewed as a justification for postponing preparations.

On the contrary, the delay offers organisations valuable additional time to assess existing pay structures, identify areas of risk, and strengthen internal processes ahead of the eventual introduction of the legislation.