Employer Resources Newsletter - November 2025

3 December 2025 – International Day of Persons with Disabilities (IDPD)

Each year, IDPD invites organisations to reflect on how they can create fair, inclusive opportunities for people with disabilities.

For the nonprofit sector where equality, inclusion and community are core values, IDPD is a timely reminder that promoting disability inclusion is more than just a legal obligation.

In 2025, the theme of IDPD continues to emphasise “fostering disability inclusive societies” which is a sentiment that every nonprofit, charity, and community organisation can bring to life through its employment practices, inclusion efforts, and governance.

Why Disability Inclusion Matters

For organisations dedicated to promoting social progress, true inclusion means ensuring that people with disabilities have equal access to employment, volunteering, leadership, and participation at every level.

Embracing disability inclusion enhances organisational impact by:

• Reflecting the diversity of the communities nonprofits serve.
• Strengthening trust and accountability with funders, stakeholders, and beneficiaries.
• Fostering creativity and innovation by welcoming diverse perspectives.
• Building a compassionate and supportive workplace culture where everyone can thrive.

Legal Obligations Under Employment Equality Law

Under the employment Equality Acts, organisations must ensure that no person is treated less favourably in employment on the basis of a disability.

This prohibition on discrimination extends to all stages of the employment relationship from recruitment and selection to access to training and termination.

Disability is also broadly defined under the legislation and includes physical, sensory, intellectual, mental health, and learning differences whether current, past, may exist in the future or imputed to a person.

Key Responsibilities

1. Prevent Discrimination

Ensure that no policies, practices, or behaviours disadvantage people with disabilities either directly or indirectly.

2. Provide Reasonable Accommodation

Take practical steps to support employees and volunteers with disabilities so they can perform their roles effectively. This may include:

• Adjusting work schedules or duties.
• Making physical spaces accessible.
• Providing assistive technology or communication supports.
• Offering remote or hybrid work options where feasible.

3. Ensure Equal Access to Employment

Review job advertisements, application forms, and interview processes to ensure they are accessible and inclusive for applicants with disabilities. Consider alternative formats, accessible online systems, and flexible interview arrangements.

Practical Steps to Promote Equal Opportunities

While compliance is essential, going beyond the bare legal requirements is vital to develop a more inclusive workplace. The following HR best practices can be employed by organisations to create a more inclusive workplace for people with disabilities. Practical steps to consider include:

Leading with Inclusion

Embed equality, equal opportunities and accessibility into your organisational strategy not just HR policy. Appoint a board or staff member as an inclusion champion to take ownership of this strategic priority.

Policy Reviews

Regularly assess your recruitment, volunteer, and employment policies to ensure they align with the principles of the Employment Equality Act.

Provide Disability Awareness Training

Offer training to staff, managers, and volunteers to build understanding and confidence in supporting colleagues and service users with disabilities.

Engage Colleagues with Disabilities

Involve people with disabilities in decision-making, programme design, and evaluation. This strengthens inclusion and ensures your organisation reflects the views of the widest range of stakeholders.

Use Clear Accessible Communication Methods

Use clear, plain language and ensure websites, forms, and internal systems are accessible 

Leverage Funding and Supports

There are government supports for employers under the Reasonable Accommodation Fund and the Disability Awareness Support Scheme which may provide financial support for inclusion initiatives. 

Inclusion as a Shared Commitment

IDPD provides an opportunity to demonstrate that equality is about more than just compliance. Nonprofits have an opportunity to lead by example in creating workplaces and services where everyone has a fair chance to contribute.

By embedding disability inclusion into organisational culture, nonprofits strengthen their capacity to create meaningful change and reflect the values of equality and dignity that underpin the community and voluntary sector.

Inclusion Begins With Action

This December 3rd, take time to review your organisation’s approach, celebrate progress, identify gaps, and commit to building a truly equal opportunity 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

HR Manager’s ‘Sharp’ Style a Legitimate Basis for Probationary Dismissal by NGO

Background

The Complainant joined the Respondent charity in a HR role in April 2024.

The Complainant was dismissed in July on the basis of probationary performance. The Complainant disputed that her performance was the reason for her dismissal and submitted a complaint alleging that her dismissal was in fact penalisation for her having raised protected disclosures related to the recruitment of an employee with outstanding vetting queries. 

Summary of Complainant’s Case

The Complainant submitted that the Respondent breached the Complainant’s employment rights by dismissing her due to her purportedly failing her probationary period. She was dismissed having raised serious concerns about the Respondent’s vetting process and the recruitment of Mr X. 

The Respondent’s National Safeguarding Manager at the relevant time, gave evidence under oath as to her views on safeguarding in general and the Respondent’s handling of Mr X’s vetting. She was of the view that the appointment of an employee with insufficient vetting was too great a risk even in circumstances where the employee was supervised as supervision can fail due to staffing pressures and other issues. 

Summary of Respondent’s Case

The Respondent submitted that it dismissed the Complainant legitimately and during her probation on the basis that she was a bad fit and had poor communications skills. The Respondent disputed that the Complainant made any protected disclosures and that any purported protected disclosures had no link to the decision to dismiss.

A HR Generalist who worked with the Complainant gave evidence relating to his perception that the Complainant did not fit well into the team.

The Respondent’s Head of Risk and Compliance and Governance was involved with the queries that arose following Mr X’s recruitment. He provided evidence on that process and on the operation of the Respondent organisation in general. 

The Respondent’s Head of HR and the Complainant’s line manager also gave evidence under affirmation. She was the person who decided to dismiss the Complainant and gave evidence of this decision and her involvement in the recruitment of Mr X pending completion of the vetting process. 

Findings and Conclusions

The Adjudicator noted open email correspondence between the Complainant’s Manager and the Head of Compliance and Governance confirming that she had approved Mr X’s hiring with his vetting outstanding. It could not follow that this was an issue that the Manager was trying to cover up or was concerned about the Complainant, a more junior member of staff, knowing about. It was not clear how the Complainant’s dismissal might have benefitted her Manager or how the Manager was at risk from the decision to employ Mr X on restricted duties pending full clearance. She had in fact handed in her resignation in May 2024 for unrelated reasons.

Two other heads of function, both senior to the Complainant, were concerned about Mr X’s hiring and he was soon put on garden leave and then dismissed. The Respondent’s position on the matter largely aligned with the Complainant’s views and they followed the course of action she argued for and dismissed him. Their delay in this regard was minimal. There was no evidence to support the position that the Respondent generally or her Manager specifically had any interest in retaliating against the Complainant, or anyone else, who raised concerns related to Mr X’s vetting.

However, there was evidence to support the Complainant having communication issues and this was the basis for her dismissal. The Complainant’s Manager gave evidence that she was concerned about the Complainant’s communication style. This involved things like emailing without salutations, copying colleagues in emails that could be perceived as critical as well as the Complainant’s general tone. She explained that the Respondent is a member governed, and volunteer led NGO. Tone is important in that context. This is particularly true of the HR function who management rely on to be emotionally intelligent advisors and sounding boards and be able to advise them.

The Complainant’s Manager flagged a number of these items in a probation meeting in July which was about 10 weeks after the Complainant had started working for the Respondent. She was not satisfied that the Complainant was adequately engaged in the probation review process, accepting of feedback or committed to improving. When she said she was concerned about how she was interacting with the team, the Complainant did not accept this and instead sought evidence that she had interpersonal issues with other members of the team.

The Adjudicator concluded that the evidence and the Complainant’s testimony pointed to the Respondent having a genuine problem with the Complainant’s communication style and her either being unable to accept this or her determining that it was her employer’s style which was wrong and not hers.

Either reaction was a perfectly legitimate basis for a probationary dismissal as well as unrelated to any protected disclosure.

Decision

The unfair dismissal claim was not established as the Respondent’s response was a legitimate basis for a probationary dismissal. 

Recommendations for employers

The Adjudicator concluded on the evidence that the Respondent had a genuine problem with the Complainant’s communication style and her refusal to accept this feedback was a perfectly legitimate basis for a probationary dismissal.

The decision serves as a reminder that employees with less than one year’s service have a right to make an unfair dismissal claim under certain statutes as well as the importance of keeping clear records of probation meetings with new hires. Detailed notes of meetings with employees could later play a vital role in defending any claims before the Workplace Relations Commission or Labour Court.

25 November is International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women

25 November each year marks International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women. This global initiative raises awareness of gender-based violence and calls on organisations, governments, and communities to take action to support those affected.

While the day serves primarily as an awareness raising initiative about prevention and supports, it also serves as a timely reminder for organisations to ensure they are complying with their statutory obligations around supporting employees who experience domestic violence.

This month also coincides with another important milestone. Statutory domestic violence leave under the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023 came into effect on 27 November 2023.

Under this legislation, employees are entitled to up to five days of paid domestic violence leave in a 12-month period. The leave can be used by anyone experiencing domestic violence or supporting a relevant person (such as a dependent) who is experiencing such circumstances. Employers must ensure that workplace policies and procedures provide appropriate confidentiality, sensitivity, and support in these situations.

As this is a relatively new statutory entitlement, its upcoming anniversary serves as a timely opportunity for HR and leadership teams to:

• Review domestic violence leave policies to ensure they align with the legislation and current best practice.
• Check internal awareness and training, ensuring managers and HR professionals understand how to respond to disclosures appropriately.
• Reassess support measures such as Employee Assistance Programmes (EAPs), signposting to specialist services, and safeguarding procedures.
• Ensure confidentiality protocols are robust and clearly communicated to managers.

Two years on from the introduction of domestic violence leave, this is the perfect time to carry out a compliance review and make sure your policy, training, and procedures are up to date.

If your organisation needs support reviewing or updating your domestic violence leave policy, Adare’s expert HR consultants can help ensure your organisation meets both its legal obligations and its duty of care to employees.