Employer Resources Newsletter – September 2026

Employment law compliance has continued to evolve at pace in 2026. For nonprofit organisations, keeping policies and employment practices aligned with the most up to date legislative developments is increasingly challenging.

The first half of 2026 has brought significant developments across pay transparency, gender pay gap reporting, pensions as well as contractual retirement ages and longer working. Further change is also anticipated with a proposed new entitlement to paid leave following early miscarriage.

For nonprofit organisations, the summer period can provide a useful opportunity to consider these recent compliance developments and review HR policies, contracts and practices. Taking a proactive approach now can help organisations manage compliance risks and prepare for changes that are still progressing through the legislative process.

Pay transparency: preparation should begin now

While the domestic framework setting out how new pay transparency obligations will apply in practice in Ireland remains under review, organisations are encouraged not to use the delay as a reason to pause preparations. Instead, it provides employers with additional time to review existing pay practices, address potential readiness gaps, and take practical steps now that will help reduce the future compliance burden once the legislation is ultimately introduced.

For nonprofit organisations, this may be particularly relevant where pay structures have developed incrementally over time, where funding arrangements influence salary scales, or where roles with similar responsibilities have different titles and remuneration arrangements.

Organisations should therefore use the legislative vacuum and the additional lead-in time it provides to advance their readiness for the new era of pay transparency. The Directive will ultimately introduce a significant range of compliance obligations, including pay transparency in recruitment, restrictions on pay history enquiries, enhanced employee information rights, mandatory gender pay gap remediation measures, and expanded reporting obligations.

Organisations that begin preparing as soon as possible will be considerably better positioned once the Irish legislative framework is finalised. For nonprofits, establishing clear and consistent principles for identifying ‘categories of worker’ doing work of equal value may be particularly valuable.

Gender pay gap reporting: increased public visibility

Pay transparency has taken another step forward with the launch of the public-facing Gender Pay Gap Portal.

Reports voluntarily submitted during 2025 are now publicly accessible, while organisations within scope of the regulations will be required to submit their 2026 reports through the central portal this November.

Importantly, organisations must continue publishing their Gender Pay Gap reports on their own websites (or otherwise making them publicly available) in addition to submitting them through the portal.

The increased accessibility of this information is likely to result in greater scrutiny from employees, prospective job candidates and other stakeholders.

Contractual retirement ages: a new consent-based framework

One of the most significant legislative developments this year is the commencement of the Employment (Contractual Retirement Ages) Act 2025.

In effect since the 29^th of June 2026, the new framework allows eligible employees to formally notify their employer that they do not consent to retiring before reaching the State Pension Age where the contractual retirement age is lower.

Where the organisation intends to rely on the contractual retirement age, a reasoned written response providing objective justification must be issued within one month. Where agreement is reached to continue employment, contractual documentation should be updated accordingly.

The legislation represents an important shift towards a more structured and transparent approach to retirement planning.

Code of Practice on Longer Working

Complementing the new retirement legislation, the Workplace Relations Commission has published an updated Code of Practice on Longer Working.

The revised Code provides guidance on handling requests both to continue working until State Pension Age and to remain in employment beyond age 66. It reinforces the importance of objective decision-making, fair procedures and maintaining comprehensive records throughout the process.

Auto-enrolment pensions: reviewing existing arrangements

The introduction of the Automatic Enrolment Retirement Savings System (My Future Fund) marks one of the most significant workplace reforms of recent years.

Eligible employees who are between 23 and 60 years of age, earn more than €20,000 annually and are not already contributing to a qualifying occupational pension are automatically enrolled into the State-backed scheme.

Alongside the scheme, minimum employer contribution standards have also been introduced for occupational pension arrangements to ensure they remain at least as favourable as the introductory auto-enrolment contribution rates.

Proposed paid leave following early miscarriage

The Government recently approved a proposal from the Minister for Enterprise, Tourism and Employment, to draft a Leave for Pregnancy Loss Bill. The Bill will introduce statutory leave for pregnancy loss prior to 23 weeks gestation for the first time under Irish law. Under existing legislation, maternity leave is available for those who experience a loss from 23 weeks gestation and onwards. The proposed Pregnancy Loss Leave Bill aims to provide for five days of paid leave per year for individuals who experience a pregnancy loss prior to 23 weeks gestation. While the legislation is still working its way through the legislative process, organisations should monitor its progress to ensure compliance when this new employee entitlement comes into effect.

Looking ahead

The pace of employment law reform shows little sign of slowing. Gender pay gap reporting, retirement age reform and pension auto-enrolment are already reshaping the employment landscape while further legislative developments, particularly around pay transparency remain in progress.

For nonprofit organisations, the challenge is often to manage evolving compliance requirements alongside competing operational priorities and financial constraints. A proactive approach to monitoring compliance can help organisations avoid a reactive response to each new development.

The remaining months in 2026 provide a timely opportunity to review HR policies, employment contracts, pay structures and management practices. Organisations that take the time to understand where they currently stand and identify the areas requiring attention will be best placed to respond to legislative change while maintaining fair, transparent and effective employment practices.

€160,000 Award in Protected Disclosures Claim by De Facto CEO of Charity

Background:

The hearing heard evidence from the Complainant as to the detrimental effects she suffered on foot of protected disclosures she made. The Respondent conceded all the allegations made by the Complainant and offered an unequivocal apology to the Complainant.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant submitted that a 2024 complaint concerned a separate act of alleged penalisation from an earlier 2023 complaint, although both acts of penalisation arose from the same protected disclosures. She argued that the Respondent’s implementation of recommendations contained in a second organisational review report resulted in a significant reduction of her responsibilities and amounted to penalisation for making protected disclosures.

The Protected Disclosures

The Complainant stated that between March 2022 and August 2023 she made a number of protected disclosures relating to:

• Alleged unauthorised expenditure by the Chair on legal and consultancy services.
• Alleged failures to follow procurement procedures.
• Governance concerns.
• Alleged bullying and harassment by the Chair.
• Concerns raised with the HSE, Charities Regulator, and other relevant bodies.

She contended that the Respondent was aware of these disclosures through correspondence from herself, her solicitors, her trade union and communications from the HSE.

Alleged Penalisation

The Complainant alleged that the Respondent penalised her by:

• Appointing an interim CEO to perform all or part of her role.
• Reallocating many of her responsibilities to the interim CEO.
• Beginning a process to recruit a permanent CEO whose duties substantially overlapped with her own, which she said effectively demoted her.

She submitted that, prior to the appointment of the interim CEO, she had been the most senior executive reporting directly to the Board. Following the appointment, she submitted that her reporting line changed, her attendance at Board meetings was altered, and she was instructed to report to the interim CEO, representing a fundamental change to her position.

Overall Position

The Complainant contended that the restructuring of the organisation, the reduction in her responsibilities, the proposed recruitment of a CEO, and the Respondent’s refusal to provide undertakings until court proceedings were commenced collectively amounted to unlawful penalisation under the protected disclosures legislation. She submitted that the only reason these actions had not progressed was because of the undertakings obtained through the Circuit Court proceedings she lodged to defend her position.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

As stated in the background, the Respondent offered no evidence and conceded the case in full.

Findings and Conclusions:

The Complainant made a number of protected disclosures regarding governance and financial issues which she viewed as wrongdoings by the Chairperson and/or members of the Board of Management. The Complainant and colleagues also made a complaint to the HSE in the form of a protected disclosure that the Chair and/or members of the Board were penalising staff for having raised concerns regarding interference and mistreatment.

It was contended by the Complainant that the penalisation complained of in respect of the complaints can be summarised as follows:

• Appointing an interim CEO to perform in part or in whole the Complainant’s role, therefore effectively demoting the Complainant.
• Assigning the Complainant’s duties to the interim CEO.
• Initiating a process to recruit a permanent CEO to perform in whole or in part the Complainant’s role, thereby effectively demoting the Complainant.

The Adjudicator noted that the Complainant sought undertakings from the Respondent to cease the above actions pending resolution of her complaints. However, no undertakings were provided until the Complainant secured injunctive relief from the Circuit Court under the protected disclosures legislation. The Adjudicator also noted the evidence that the Complainant and her Trade Union and Legal Counsel had to fight ‘tooth and nail’ at the Circuit Court to secure undertakings which were not forthcoming.

The Adjudicator noted that the Complainant was called to a meeting with the Respondent in January 2024 at which the Complainant was advised by the then Chair that a new interim CEO would start the following day. The meeting was said to have lasted one minute.

The same day, the Complainant received an e-mail from the Chair in which he stated that he wished to make it clear that the CEO role was a new one and would not replace the Complainant’s Director of Services role. The Chairman stated that the Complainant would remain in place as Director of Services.

Given the role and responsibilities of the Director of Services, the Adjudicator found this clearly constituted penalisation in the form of demotion and transfer of duties.

The Adjudicator concluded that the Respondent’s course in seeking to create a proposed CEO role in January 2024 was on foot of the Complainant having made protected disclosures.

Decision:

Based on the findings and reasons above, the Adjudicator found that the complaint was well-founded.

The Adjudicator directed the Respondent to take the following specified course of action:

• To cease all steps and processes in being or contemplated to place a CEO or other office holder above the Complainant in the line of management.
• To bring to an end the role of interim CEO.
• To acknowledge the role of the Complainant as de facto CEO and most senior executive reporting to the Board.
• To offer a full and unequivocal apology to the Complainant for the mistreatment she suffered during the period June 2023 to May 2025.
• To pay to the Complainant compensation of €161,620.

Recommendations for employers

In this Case, a charity’s Director of Services, who functioned as the organisation’s de facto CEO, was awarded €161,62 after the Workplace Relations Commission found she had been penalised for making protected disclosures concerning governance, procurement and financial management.

The level of compensation serves as a stark reminder of the significant financial and reputational risks that can arise where organisations fail to address protected disclosures. The focus should always remain on the substance of the concerns raised and whether they warrant investigation, rather than the discloser or the organisational impact of the disclosure.

Embedding a culture that encourages employees to speak up, investigates concerns impartially and protects reporting persons from penalisation is essential to ensure compliance with the Protected Disclosures Acts.

Reports to the Protected Disclosures Commissioner Up 57% in 2025

The Office of the Protected Disclosures Commissioner (OPDC) recently published its 2025 Annual Report.

The headline figure from the report is a 57% increase in the number of reports received by the OPDC with 411 reports received in 2025, up from 262 in 2024.

Use of AI

One of the notable trends cited in the Annual Report was an increasing tendency of reporting persons to use AI tools to create their reports. Reports that rely on AI tend to be longer, more

voluminous, and contain a lot of general information that is not directly related to the wrongdoing

being reported. The use of AI also requires the OPDC to verify if legal references are accurate or ‘hallucinations.’ This trend has been mirrored in the Workplace Relations Commission which has taken the step of issuing guidance to litigants on the use of AI tools in the preparation of material for submissions and workplace claims.

Encouraging employees to Speak Up

The Protected Disclosures Commissioner noted the increasing use of the protected disclosures framework and took the opportunity to encourage all organisations regardless of their size to promote a culture of speaking up in the workplace by putting in place appropriate reporting procedures.

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 [email protected].