Employment Matters

19/10/2026

77-hour weeks and pay as low as €6.83 per hour. A costly lesson for employers.

A Co Westmeath dairy farm has been ordered by the WRC to pay €10,420.13 in outstanding wages to a former employee, alongside further awards for employment rights breaches.

The employee had worked extensive hours during calving season while receiving a fixed monthly wage of €2,500.

When the hours were disputed, the employee was able to produce detailed records, photographs and messages.

The employer had not maintained working-time records, and the WRC preferred the employee's evidence.

For employers, this case is an important reminder:

✅ Keep accurate records of actual hours worked.

✅ Check that salaries meet minimum wage requirements.

✅ Ensure statutory rest and leave entitlements are respected.

✅ Never assume that busy periods remove employment law obligations.

This decision has lessons for businesses well beyond the agricultural sector.

Read our full breakdown and practical guidance for Irish employers:

https://www.employment-matters.ie/wrc-77-hour-weeks-working-time-records/

WRC Case Reference: ADJ-00058810

16/10/2026

€2,321.75 WRC award after employer failed to pay festival worker.**

Can an employer withhold staff wages because a business loses money?

A recent WRC decision highlights why this is a serious risk.

A temporary worker carried out 119.5 hours of work for a catering company involved in Forest Fest 2025.

When she requested payment, the company referred to disappointing sales and problems encountered during the event.

More than a year later, her wages remained unpaid.

The WRC rejected the employer's explanation and ordered payment of €2,321.75.

The message for employers is clear:

A disappointing commercial result does not automatically justify withholding wages that employees have earned.

This applies to businesses employing full-time, part-time, temporary and seasonal workers, subject to the relevant employment arrangements.

We've broken down the case and what employers should take from it.

Read the full article: https://www.employment-matters.ie/wrc-unpaid-wages-business-losses/

Case reference: ADJ-00061719

15/10/2026

A WhatsApp message about closing a business. No clear redundancy notice. No meaningful consultation.

The WRC has awarded €2,500 to an employee after finding that his dismissal was procedurally unfair.

In ADJ-00060616, the employer was experiencing genuine financial difficulties and informed the employee by WhatsApp that business operations were being paused.

The employee repeatedly sought clarification about his job but received no response.

The WRC accepted that the redundancy itself was genuine.

The problem was the process.

For employers, the decision highlights some important points:

- Tell employees clearly when their role is at risk.
- Provide an opportunity for meaningful consultation.
- Consider any representations before finalising the decision.
- Clearly communicate the outcome and applicable entitlements.
- Keep records of the steps taken.

The employer was also ordered to pay €610.26 in outstanding annual leave and €1,307.69 in minimum notice, with a separate statutory redundancy entitlement confirmed.

Financial difficulties can make redundancies necessary, but they do not remove the need for fair procedures.

We've broken down the decision and what employers should take from it.

Read the full article: https://www.employment-matters.ie/wrc-whatsapp-redundancy-unfair-dismissal/

14/10/2026

An employer can have genuine safety concerns about an employee.

That does not mean it can impose any test it chooses and stop paying them until they comply.

A recent WRC decision has resulted in a residential care manager being awarded:

€40,000

after a dispute over drug testing led to months away from work without pay and ultimately constructive dismissal.

The manager worked in residential care for vulnerable children.

His employer became concerned about his health and suspected possible drug misuse.

But importantly, the employee did not simply refuse medical or drug testing.

According to the WRC decision:
▪️ He attended the company doctor
▪️ He consented to physical examination and blood testing
▪️ He offered to provide blood and urine samples for drug testing
▪️ He refused the employer’s specific demand for a hair-strand test
▪️ No medical practitioner was shown to have advised that hair testing was necessary
▪️ He was prevented from returning to work until he agreed
▪️ His wages stopped from 10 January 2024
▪️ No formal disciplinary investigation into alleged drug misuse had been completed

The WRC found that the employer had no contractual basis for requiring that particular hair-strand test or for placing the employee on undefined unpaid leave until he complied.

The result:
€20,828 — constructive dismissal
€19,172 — unlawful withholding of wages
TOTAL: €40,000

For employers, the wider lesson is important:
A safeguarding concern can justify investigation.

It does not remove the need to establish:
▪️ What evidence supports the concern
▪️ What the employment contract and policy actually permit
▪️ What medical professionals recommend
▪️ Whether suspension is genuinely necessary
▪️ Whether suspension should be paid
▪️ Whether the issue is medical fitness, misconduct, or both
▪️ What process allows the employee to respond

Suspicion is not a finding.

And a fitness-to-work process should not become an indefinite disciplinary sanction without an investigation.

WRC Reference: ADJ-00052209

We’ve examined the decision and the practical lessons for employers in our latest article.

Read more on the Employment Matters website.
https://www.employment-matters.ie/employee-drug-testing-ireland-wrc-40000/

13/10/2026

Short service does not always protect an employer from an unfair dismissal claim.

A recent WRC decision has resulted in a €25,000 award after a hospitality manager was dismissed just 11 days after suffering a miscarriage.

The employer said the dismissal was because of poor performance.
But the WRC did not accept that explanation.
The employee had less than 12 months’ service.

Normally, that can prevent an ordinary unfair-dismissal claim.
But that was not the end of the issue.

The WRC accepted that a miscarriage is a pregnancy-related matter and rejected the employer’s argument that the relevant protection could not apply because the employee was no longer pregnant when she was dismissed.

According to the decision:
▪️ The employee suffered a miscarriage in late September
▪️ She returned to work shortly afterwards
▪️ She was dismissed only 11 days after the pregnancy loss
▪️ The employer relied on alleged performance concerns
▪️ Her contract allowed a maximum probationary period of 11 months
▪️ She already had 11 months and two days’ service at the relevant meeting
▪️ The WRC found the performance explanation lacked credibility

The result:
€25,000 WRC AWARD

For employers, the wider lesson is important:
Probation and short service do not remove the need to examine why a dismissal is really happening.

Where dismissal follows closely after pregnancy or another pregnancy-related matter, employers should be able to demonstrate:

▪️ When performance concerns first arose
▪️ What evidence supports them
▪️ What feedback had already been given
▪️ Whether probation was still valid
▪️ Who made the decision
▪️ Why the same decision would have been made regardless of the pregnancy-related event

Timing does not decide a case on its own.

But the closer the events are, the more important the evidence becomes.

We’ve examined the decision and the practical lessons for employers in our latest article.

Read more on the Employment Matters website.
https://www.employment-matters.ie/pregnancy-related-dismissal-ireland-wrc-25000/

08/10/2026

€40,000 WRC Award: A Reminder for Employers to Follow Their Own Procedures

Bus Éireann was ordered to pay €40,000 after the WRC found that a long-serving employee was penalised following a workplace health and safety complaint.

The employee's application for ill-health retirement had not been progressed because separate personal injury proceedings were ongoing.

The WRC found that this denied him access to the company's established assessment process.

What should employers take from this decision?

✅ Follow established workplace procedures consistently.

✅ Avoid treating employees unfavourably because they have raised protected complaints.

✅ Keep separate workplace and legal processes appropriately independent.

✅ Document decisions and ensure they can be properly justified.

The key lesson: An employer may have the right to defend legal proceedings, but that does not remove its responsibility to deal fairly with other workplace matters.

Read the full WRC decision here:

https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2026/august/adj-00059707.html

WRC Case Reference: ADJ-00059707

07/10/2026

If an employer recruits someone to Ireland for a job, what happens when the job is no longer there when they arrive?

Two WRC awards of €30,420 each have been left standing following Labour Court appeals involving healthcare workers recruited to Ireland from Zimbabwe.

The workers had travelled to Ireland expecting to begin employment at a care facility.

The promised work did not materialise.

According to the evidence before the WRC:

▪️ Workers were left without the income they expected
▪️ They described significant difficulty meeting basic living costs
▪️ Some said delays obtaining the documentation required to move employer prevented them taking alternative work
▪️ The WRC described their treatment as “particularly egregious”

The original WRC award was:

€30,420 EACH
The employer appealed.

But in two of the cases, the appeals were lodged one day after the statutory 42-day deadline.

The Labour Court found that the explanation provided did not amount to exceptional circumstances justifying an extension.

The two awards therefore remain in place.

Importantly, the Labour Court did not determine the substantive merits of those two appeals — the deadline itself became decisive.

For employers, the wider lesson starts long before a hearing.

If you recruit somebody internationally, be able to demonstrate:

▪️ The role genuinely exists before travel
▪️ Changes to the start date are communicated immediately
▪️ There is a contingency plan if the underlying work disappears
▪️ Any employer-controlled documentation needed to move employment is dealt with promptly
▪️ Someone internally owns the recruitment process from offer through to commencement

And if a WRC decision arrives:

Know the deadline.
Know who owns the appeal.
And confirm that it has actually been lodged.
International recruitment creates additional dependency.
It needs additional process control.

We’ve examined the case and the practical lessons for employers in our latest article.

Read more on the Employment Matters website.
https://www.employment-matters.ie/overseas-recruitment-ireland-employers-wrc-30420/

06/10/2026

AI is already being used in workplaces to draft documents, screen applications, assess performance and support management decisions.

But for employers, the question is increasingly becoming: where does everyday AI use cross into employment law and regulatory risk?

The Workplace Relations Commission has now published guidance on its role under the EU AI Act.

The WRC highlights a number of workplace uses of AI that employers need to pay particular attention to, including:

• Recruitment and candidate screening
• Work allocation
• Performance monitoring and evaluation
• Promotion decisions
• Decisions affecting employment or access to work

The guidance also makes an important point for employers: simply purchasing an AI system from a third-party provider does not remove your responsibilities when using it.

The WRC recommends that employers start by:

✔️ Mapping where AI is already being used across HR and management
✔️ Understanding what data those systems rely on
✔️ Keeping appropriate human oversight over decisions
✔️ Considering equality, employment law and data protection risks
✔️ Training managers and staff on responsible AI use

AI does not have to make the final decision for problems to arise. How it influences a grievance, recruitment decision, performance process or other workplace decision may become relevant if that decision is later challenged.

And this is exactly what we're discussing tomorrow.

Our live employer webinar, AI at Work: The Legal Risks Behind Everyday HR Decisions, takes place tomorrow, Wednesday 7 October, from 1:00–2:00pm.

We'll look at practical situations employers are increasingly facing as AI becomes part of everyday workplace decision-making.

Register here:
https://us06web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_vOfeZoBoTmulds3mEdVrTQ

05/10/2026

⏳ 2 DAYS TO GO

AI is already being used in workplaces every day — sometimes without employers even knowing how, where or what information is being entered.

But what happens when AI starts influencing:

• A response to an employee grievance?
• A performance management decision?
• Confidential employee or client information?
• Documents that later become relevant in a workplace dispute?

This Wednesday, our live employer webinar will look at the practical legal risks behind everyday workplace AI use.

AI at Work: The Legal Risks Behind Everyday HR Decisions

📅 Wednesday 7 October
🕐 1:00–2:00pm
💻 Live on Zoom
💬 Includes audience Q&A

We’ll use practical workplace scenarios to explore where problems can arise and what employers should be thinking about now when setting boundaries around AI use.

Register here:
https://us06web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_vOfeZoBoTmulds3mEdVrTQ

Employers and HR teams are using AI to respond to grievances, draft correspondence and work through difficult employee issues. But what are the legal consequences when that information is shared, the output is wrong or a decision is later challenged? This practical webinar explores the legal risks b...

01/10/2026

A breakdown in trust does not automatically give an employer a shortcut to dismissal.

A recent WRC decision has resulted in an employee being awarded €8,500 after the Commission found that his dismissal was procedurally unfair.

The employment relationship had become extremely difficult.
The employee had raised numerous grievances.

There were also management concerns about:
▪️ His communications with colleagues and managers
▪️ Refusal to follow management instructions
▪️ Insubordination
▪️ His insistence that communications take place in writing
▪️ The wider impact of the relationship on the team

The WRC accepted that the employee had become difficult to manage.
That was not the problem.
The problem was the process.

The employer’s own disciplinary policy provided for a staged procedure:
▪️ Verbal warning
▪️ First written warning
▪️ Final written warning
▪️ Dismissal

Instead, the employer moved to a faster process based on an alleged “breakdown in trust and confidence.”

The WRC found that the real issue was effectively misconduct.
And if misconduct was the issue, the employee should have received the protections of the disciplinary process.

The Commission found the dismissal unfair and awarded:
€8,500

Importantly, the WRC also said that had a staged process been followed and the conduct continued, dismissal for misconduct could have been lawful.

For employers, the lesson is important:
A difficult employee can still be managed.
But first identify the real issue.

If it is misconduct:
▪️ Define the conduct clearly
▪️ Follow the disciplinary procedure
▪️ Give appropriate warnings
▪️ Give the employee an opportunity to improve
▪️ Keep grievance and disciplinary processes appropriately separate
▪️ Make sure dismissal is a proportionate final step

“Loss of trust” should not become a label used to bypass the process that actually applies.

WRC Reference: ADJ-00048231

We’ve examined the decision and the practical lessons for employers in our latest article.

Read more on the Employment Matters website.
https://www.employment-matters.ie/breakdown-trust-confidence-dismissal-disciplinary-process/