Employer Resources Newsletter - October 2025

HR Best Practice: Strategic Health and Wellbeing Initiatives

Return on Investment From Strategic Health & Wellbeing Initiatives

There are many challenges and rewards involved in working in the nonprofit sector. Organisations are tasked not only with delivering vital services to communities but also with managing limited resources, high workloads, and emotionally demanding roles. In this context, investing in strategic employee health and wellbeing initiatives may seem like a low priority. Investments in employee health and wellbeing are nonetheless capable of delivering tangible returns for both employers and employees.

Employer ROI: Compliance, Cost Savings & Culture

While the moral case for promoting good employee wellbeing is clear, the business case is equally compelling. Employer side return on investment from health and wellbeing initiatives include:

Legal Compliance: A Fundamental Return

Under the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005, employers have a legal obligation to ensure, as far as reasonably practicable, the safety, health and welfare of their employees. This duty includes:

Managing psychosocial risks such as stress, burnout, and harassment.
Implementing risk assessments and appropriate controls for both physical and mental health hazards.
Promoting a workplace culture that supports wellbeing.

Strategic wellbeing initiatives help nonprofits go beyond box-ticking compliance. They offer a structured way to identify and address risks proactively, reduce exposure to legal liabilities from employee claims and foster a safer, more productive work environment.

Reduced Absenteeism & Presenteeism

Stress-related illness, musculoskeletal issues, and burnout remain leading causes of workplace absence. An employee wellbeing strategy targeting the risks faced by employees incorporating mental health supports, workload management, and flexible work arrangements if appropriate can reduce absenteeism and improve presenteeism (when staff are at work but not fully functioning due to health issues). For nonprofits operating on tight budgets and limited staffing, even small reductions in absenteeism can significantly impact service delivery and operational costs.

Improved Retention and Engagement

Wellbeing initiatives let employees know that the organisation values its people. When employees feel supported through practices that make their working lives safer, engagement levels rise. In a sector where burnout and high employee turnover are common, strategic wellbeing programmes can serve as a key part of retention initiatives, preserving institutional knowledge and reducing recruitment costs.

The Employee ROI: Health, Motivation & Meaning

Employees benefit from strategic wellbeing initiatives in ways that go beyond the workplace.

Better Mental and Physical Health

Access to Employee Assistance Programmes (EAPs), mental health training, physical activity initiatives, or even simple steps like improved ergonomics and regular check-ins can make a tangible difference in an employee’s quality of life both in and out of work.

Workplace Culture

Employees who feel cared for are more motivated, more productive, and more likely to advocate for their organisation. In nonprofits, where a sense of purpose is a key part of employee motivation, wellbeing supports demonstrate to employees that workplace culture is aligned with the values of the organisation and its people.

Work-Life Balance

Wellbeing programmes often include flexibility, stress management, and support tools that allow employees to manage their personal time and health more effectively

Reduced Stigma

Normalising health (both mental and physical) and wellbeing conversations in the workplace helps break down barriers, creating a culture where employees feel safe seeking help.

Strategic, Not Sporadic: What Makes Wellbeing Initiatives Work

To realise these returns, wellbeing should be approached strategically, not as a series of disconnected initiatives.

Practical steps to embed health and wellbeing into workplace strategy and culture include:

Promote work-life balance: Implement policies that encourage flexible working hours, remote work, or other appropriate practices to reduce the risk of employee stress and burnout.
Provide mental health resources: Ensure employees have access to employee Assistance Programs (EAPs), counselling services, and stress management workshops.
Undertake wellbeing audits: This exercise will help to identify strengths, weaknesses and opportunities.
Develop a formal wellbeing policy: A formal policy can be tailored to reflect the challenges faced by employees working in the nonprofit sector and the demographics of the workforce.
Measure impact and outcomes: Monitor relevant KPIs, including absenteeism rates, staff turnover, and employee engagement surveys.
Leadership involvement: Ensure management and leadership teams actively participate in health and wellbeing initiatives, setting a positive example and reinforcing the organisation’s commitment to positive physical and mental wellbeing.

A Strategic Imperative for Nonprofits

For nonprofit organisations, the pressure to do more with less is ongoing. But investing in health and wellbeing is not just a moral imperative, it’s a strategic one. From compliance and risk management to employee retention and performance management, the return on investment is real and measurable.

At its best, a strategic wellbeing approach creates a virtuous cycle: a safer, healthier, more resilient workforce delivering greater impact for the communities they serve.

How Adare Can Help

For organisations that are ready to move beyond making a symbolic gesture, Adare partners with Healthy Place to Work ® in helping organisations achieve a recognised certification as a healthy place to work. This certification demonstrates each participating organisation’s commitment to employee health and wellbeing.

Our team of HR and wellbeing experts guide organisations from initial assessment and strategy development right through to implementation, reporting and impact evaluation.

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

WRC / Labour Court Decisions

Social Worker Awarded €44,000 for Discrimination on Grounds of Gender and Race

Background

Two complaints concerning discrimination on the race and gender ground arose from a decision of the Respondent not to recognise the Complainant’s academic qualifications in social care and other qualifications prescribed by the Health and Social Care Professionals Council. The Complainant claimed that, unlike two of her colleagues, one of whom, unlike her, was Caucasian and the other who was a man, her level 8 degree had not been recognised as adequate for consideration as a qualified social care worker.

Summary of Complainant’s Case

Discrimination on the Race Ground

The Complainant claimed that, compared to her female colleague, she was being treated less favourably on the ground of race. The Complainant’s female colleague was Caucasian and the complainant was not. The Complainant’s female colleague was interviewed for her job in 2006 at the same time as the Complainant and they were both employed as social care workers. The Complainant’s female colleague was from Poland and she graduated there with a Bachelor’s Degree in Social Science and a Master’s Degree in Pedagogy of People with Intellectual Disabilities.

In 2019, the Complainant’s female colleague discovered that she was on the unqualified pay scale, and she raised a query with the HR department. She said that the matter was rectified in a few days, and she received back pay with effect from the date of her qualification.

Discrimination on the Gender Ground

The Complainant named a male colleague as a comparator who, like her, held a level 8 Bachelor’s Degree in Social Science from UCD. In a statement he provided to the Complainant for inclusion in her submission at the hearing, the Complainant’s male colleague said that, when he was being recruited, he negotiated his entry point on the salary scale at the “with qualification” level. Payslips for both employees were submitted in evidence and showed that the Complainant and her male colleague were on different pay scales.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

Response to the Comparators Presented by the Complainant

In response to the claim of discrimination on the race ground, the Respondent stated that the pay scale was reviewed in 2019 and the Complainant’s female colleague was moved to the qualified social care worker pay scale because she held a primary degree and a post-graduate degree from another country. The Respondent stated that “it was incumbent upon the Respondent to look beyond the very prescriptive list of approved Irish courses, to ensure that there was no inference of discrimination.” The Respondent’s view was that the Complainant’s female colleague’s postgraduate qualifications were in excess of what was required by Health and Social Care Professionals Council and that an exception was justified. The Complainant had a post-graduate qualification in business studies and it was the Respondent’s position that the Complainant’s female colleague was not “a true comparator” for the purpose of this complaint.

On the gender claim, the Respondent exhibited records showing that the Complainant’s male colleague commenced work in a separate service overseen by the Respondent in November 2011 and, at the time, he negotiated to be placed on the “with qualification” pay scale. In 2014, when he transferred to the unit where he worked alongside the Complainant, the Respondent stated that “the HR team felt compelled to honour his pre-existing T&Cs.” The Respondent submitted that the Complainant’s male colleague’s terms were “an anomaly rather than the norm” and that he was not a valid comparator on the basis that his terms and conditions were negotiated pre-employment.

Findings and Conclusions:

The Burden of Proof

The Adjudicator’s first task was to consider if the Complainant had shown that, based on the primary facts, she had been discriminated against by the Respondent due to their decision not to consider her as a qualified social care worker based on her Degree in Social Science and her experience in the role of a social care worker since 2002.

The Primary Facts

The Complainant worked as a relief social care worker from 2002. In 2006, by which time she had completed her Degree in Social Science, a vacancy was advertised for a permanent role and she applied for the position. The job advertisement did not identify the role as “qualified” or “unqualified” and the contract issued to the Complainant in March 2006 referred to the position simply as a “Social Care Worker.” This title is repeated in the cover letter accompanying the contract.

Under the heading, “Salary Scale,” the contract made no reference to the salary scale being applicable to a role as an unqualified social care worker.

The Complainant’s evidence was that, when she was recruited to the permanent role in March 2006, her understanding was that she was appointed to the job because she had completed a level 8 Degree in Social Science. The Respondent provided no evidence to show that the Complainant was informed at the time she was recruited that she was appointed to a role as an unqualified social care worker. Many employees in the role of social care worker at the time that the Complainant was hired had no formal qualifications and they were encouraged by the Respondent and supported financially to take FETAC level 5 training. The Complainant was never directed to take this training. This led the Adjudicator to conclude that the position of the Respondent was that she was qualified for the job.

The Complainant’s male colleague was a UCD graduate in Social Science. The decision of the Respondent to hire him on a more advantageous pay scale is indicates that, at the time of his appointment, he was treated more favourably than the Complainant.

In 2019, at the same time as the Complainant, her female colleague discovered that she was on the unqualified pay scale, and the matter was rectified as soon as she raised it with the Respondent’s HR department. The Adjudicator was satisfied that the facts submitted by the Complainant were sufficient to raise a presumption of discrimination. The burden of proving that discrimination on the gender and race grounds did not occur therefore shifted to the Respondent.

Examination of the Respondent’s Case that the Complainant was not Discriminated Against

In 2020, when the Complainant enquired with the HR department about her classification on the unqualified scale, she was, in effect, seeking to negotiate a move to the qualified scale. The fact that, unlike her male colleague, her efforts were unsuccessful, indicated that she was treated less favourably. When the male colleague transferred to the same service as the Complainant, he was “unqualified” and therefore in the same position as the Complainant. As the Respondent stated that the male colleague’s terms and conditions were “an anomaly,” there was room in the organisation for another anomaly and the Adjudicator found that it was discriminatory to treat the Complainant less favourably.

It was particularly damning that the Complainant was not aware and was not informed about the two pay scales. The fact that this information was concealed from her was deceptive in the Adjudicator’s view and the failure to rectify the situation resulted in her being treated less favourably compared to her male colleague.

Moving to the Complainant’s claim that she was discriminated against on the ground of her race, the Adjudicator noted the Respondent’s submission that, when the Complainant’s female colleague requested to be moved to the qualified pay scale, “it was incumbent upon the Respondent to look beyond the very prescriptive list of approved Irish courses, to ensure there was no inference of discrimination.”.

The Adjudicator found that most reasonable people with knowledge of the social care profession would conclude that an employee with a Social Science Degree and more than 20 years of dedicated and unblemished service fell within the parameters of having a “sufficiently relevant” qualification. It was open to the Respondent to approach the Complainant’s case with the same level of flexibility they applied to her female colleague and, it was the Adjudicator’s view that, by seeking to ensure that there was no inference of discrimination in her case, the Complainant, who is of a different race, was treated less favourably.

Conclusion

It was also apparent that since 2023, the Respondent had discretion regarding the determination of the qualifications of experienced social care workers in their employment. This discretion was exercised in the case of two of the Complainant’s colleagues. It was with some regret that the Adjudicator found that the only explanation for not exercising the same discretion with regard to the Complainant was related to the fact that she was not Caucasian and not a man.

Decision: The Adjudicator concluded that the Complainant was discriminated against on the grounds of race and gender and directed the Respondent to pay the Complainant €44,000 in compensation.

Recommendations

With increasing pay transparency compliance on the horizon, organisations should ensure any differences in pay levels can be objectively justified to minimise the risk of pay-related discrimination claims. This decision is also the latest in a number of recent discrimination claims that have attracted high levels of compensation. Organisations should note that in employment equality cases, awards of compensation tend to be higher as they must have a dissuasive effect on the employer and they often include an allocation for the effects of the discrimination on the employee.

Did You Know?

World Mental Health Day – 10 October

10 October marks World Mental Health Day each year. The overall objective of World Mental Health Day is to raise awareness of mental health issues and to activate efforts to improve mental health supports. This annual observance provides an opportunity for all stakeholders from employers to employees and service providers to highlight the role positive mental health plays in both individual and organisational success. For nonprofit organisations, where staff often work under pressure, in emotionally demanding roles, mental health supports are not a nice to have, they are essential.

Investing in mental health not only benefits employees, it enhances overall organisational performance. Some of the organisational benefits include:

Improved Productivity: Employees who feel mentally supported are more focused, creative, and resilient in their roles.
Reduced Absenteeism & Burnout: Proactive supports like Employee Assistance Programmes (EAPs), mental health training, and flexible policies reduce time lost to stress-related illness.
Better Retention & Engagement: A culture that values wellbeing strengthens trust, motivation, and loyalty — all vital in a sector where staff retention is a challenge.

By embedding mental health into your organisational culture through open conversations, clear policies, relevant supports, and resources, employers not only ensure they minimise compliance risks, they also build stronger, more resilient teams.

How Adare Can Help

Through this partnership, Adare has assisted organisations throughout Ireland in developing and implementing strategic health and wellbeing frameworks that are evidence-based, practical, and aligned with organisational objectives. Our team of HR and wellbeing experts guide organisations from initial assessment and strategy development right through to implementation, reporting and impact evaluation.

With the recent celebration of World Mental Health Day, we are inviting employers to take meaningful steps toward creating more resilient organisations that reflect the good health of their employees.

www.adarehrm.ie

Return to Employer Resources