Employment Matters

Employment Matters We offer advice on all areas of Employment Law both for the Employer and the individual employee!

Employment Matters is an Employment Law Consultancy located right in Dublin & in the heart of Waterford City. We help both employers and employees to resolve any employment issues where conflict has arisen or where there has been a breakdown in the employment relationship.

What actually happens when employers agree to mediate a WRC claim?The WRC has now given us some unusually useful data.It...
03/09/2026

What actually happens when employers agree to mediate a WRC claim?

The WRC has now given us some unusually useful data.

It analysed 1,000 pre-adjudication mediations from 2025 — looking at what settled, what didn't, settlement amounts, representation and how long the process took.

Some of the figures stand out:

▪️ 67.2% of telephone mediations settled
▪️ 56% of unfair dismissal disputes settled
▪️ Unfair dismissal accounted for 29.9% of complaint areas mediated
▪️ The overall median financial settlement was €6,000
▪️ 86% of mediations concluded within a half-day
▪️ In 70.6% of non-resolutions, mediators considered the parties simply too far apart financially

That last figure is particularly useful for employers.

If you're going into mediation, do the case valuation before you enter the room.

Know:

What is our evidence?

Where are our weaknesses?

What is the realistic exposure?

What would continuing to adjudication cost?

What settlement authority do we have?

Are there non-financial solutions worth exploring?

Mediation doesn't mean an employer has to settle.

But it should allow the business to make an informed decision about whether resolution is commercially and legally preferable to proceeding to a public hearing.

We've looked at what the WRC's analysis of 1,000 cases tells employers in our latest article.

Read more on the Ormonde Solicitors website.
https://www.ormondesolicitors.ie/what-1000-wrc-mediations-tell-employers-about-settling-claims/

An employee raises concerns about wrongdoing. Ten days later, their employment ends.Can the employer prove the two event...
02/09/2026

An employee raises concerns about wrongdoing. Ten days later, their employment ends.

Can the employer prove the two events are unrelated?

That question sits at the centre of a significant new Labour Court decision.

Fish Shack founder Padraic Hanley has been awarded €75,549 following a five-year employment law dispute.

The Labour Court found that four communications made by Mr Hanley amounted to protected disclosures.

Those included concerns relating to:

▪️ A proposed cash-in-hand payment
▪️ Operating during an orange weather warning
▪️ The use of an allegedly unregistered contractor for a gas leak
▪️ A further workplace management issue

Mr Hanley was laid off on 19 March 2020 on the stated basis of the Covid-19 pandemic.

The Labour Court ultimately found that but for the protected disclosures, his employment would not have been terminated.

For employers, there is an important distinction.

Making a protected disclosure does not prevent an employee from later being disciplined, made redundant or dismissed for legitimate reasons.

But where another employment decision follows a disclosure, employers need to be able to show:

Why was the decision made?
When was it first contemplated?
Who made it?
What evidence supported it?
Would exactly the same decision have been taken if the employee had never spoken up?

This case travelled from the WRC to the Labour Court, then to the High Court and back to the Labour Court before reaching this outcome.

A workplace decision made today can be scrutinised years later. Document the reason at the time.

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

Read more on the Ormonde Solicitors website.
https://www.ormondesolicitors.ie/labour-court-2025-report-key-lessons-for-irish-employers-copy/

What are Irish employers most likely to end up fighting about at the Labour Court?The Labour Court's newly published 202...
01/09/2026

What are Irish employers most likely to end up fighting about at the Labour Court?

The Labour Court's newly published 2025 Annual Report gives us a useful indication.

During 2025 it received 992 appeals and referrals.

Of those:

775 — 78% — were employment rights appeals.

Two areas stood out in particular:

▪️ 151 Employment Equality appeals
▪️ 147 Unfair Dismissal appeals

Unfair dismissal appeals were also up 9% on the previous year.

There is another important point.

Although the overall number of cases fell by 11%, the Labour Court says its workload has not necessarily reduced because the cases coming before it are becoming more complex and requiring more sitting time.

For employers, the lesson isn't simply about what happens when a case reaches the Labour Court.

It is about what happens months earlier in the workplace.

Was the investigation properly documented?

Was the employee given an opportunity to respond?

Was the decision proportionate?

Were equality implications considered?

Can the employer explain why the decision was made?

The best defence to an employment claim usually starts before there is a claim.

We've looked at the figures and the practical lessons for employers in our latest article.

Read more on the Ormonde Solicitors website.
https://www.ormondesolicitors.ie/labour-court-2025-report-key-lessons-for-irish-employers/

Can an employer pause an internal HR process because an employee has taken a legal claim against them?A recent WRC decis...
31/08/2026

Can an employer pause an internal HR process because an employee has taken a legal claim against them?

A recent WRC decision involving Bus Éireann provides an important warning.

A long-serving employee was awarded €40,000 after the WRC found that he had been penalised in breach of workplace health and safety legislation.

The employee had raised concerns alleging that prolonged use of vibrating tools amounted to an unsafe system of work.

At the same time, his employer had been considering either alternative employment or retirement on ill-health grounds.

The problem arose when his medical retirement application became linked to an ongoing personal injury case.

The WRC found that denying him access to the normal ill-health retirement process because of the civil proceedings caused a significant financial detriment.

Importantly, the WRC did not decide that he was automatically entitled to medical retirement.

The issue was that he was entitled to have his application considered through the proper process.

For employers, the wider lesson is important:

An employee raising a health and safety concern should not contaminate an otherwise separate HR decision.

Where several processes are running at once, employers should ask:

▪️ Are they genuinely legally dependent on one another?
▪️ What objective reason supports any delay or change?
▪️ Is that reason documented?
▪️ Would we have made the same decision if the employee had never raised the safety complaint?

The WRC awarded €40,000 and also directed Bus Éireann to progress the medical retirement application.

WRC Reference: ADJ-00059707

We've examined the decision and the practical employer lessons in our latest article.

Read more on the Ormonde Solicitors website.
https://www.ormondesolicitors.ie/bus-eireann-ordered-to-pay-e40000-for-penalisation/

Same salary. Same employee. But was it really the same job?Tesco Ireland has been directed to pay €30,000 to a long-serv...
28/08/2026

Same salary. Same employee. But was it really the same job?

Tesco Ireland has been directed to pay €30,000 to a long-serving supermarket assistant manager following a TUPE transfer.

The employee had worked at the Cavan store for approximately 27 years before Tesco took over its operation.

Before the transfer, his role centred on managing the stockroom and deliveries and directing staff.

Following the takeover, he said approximately 90% of his work involved stacking shelves, while additional management layers had been placed above him.

Tesco argued that his salary and terms and conditions had remained unchanged.

But the WRC found that a key aspect of his contractual position had not been preserved and that he had, in practical terms, been demoted.

For employers, the case provides an important TUPE lesson:

Keeping someone's salary unchanged may not be enough.

When transferring employees into a new organisational structure, employers should also consider:

▪️ Actual duties
▪️ Management responsibility
▪️ Status and seniority
▪️ Reporting lines
▪️ Levels of authority
▪️ Whether a flexibility clause genuinely covers the proposed changes

TUPE protects contractual rights when a business transfers to a new employer. Reorganisation may be commercially necessary, but the impact on transferred employees still needs to be assessed carefully.

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

Read more on the Ormonde Solicitors website.
https://www.ormondesolicitors.ie/tesco-ordered-to-pay-e30000-following-tupe-role-change/

A serious allegation requires an urgent response. But urgency does not remove the need for objectivity.A healthcare assi...
27/08/2026

A serious allegation requires an urgent response. But urgency does not remove the need for objectivity.

A healthcare assistant at the Mater Hospital has been awarded €10,000 after the WRC found that he had been discriminated against on the race ground.

The case arose from an extremely serious complaint made by a patient about an unidentified individual.

The hospital was required to act.

But the WRC's concern centred on how one particular employee came to be identified.

According to the decision:

▪️ The initial screening was too limited
▪️ Other potentially relevant staff and areas had not been sufficiently considered
▪️ A general description was treated as pointing towards one individual
▪️ The employee was suspended without sufficient objective oversight
▪️ The manager responsible for the pivotal screening decision was not available as a witness at the WRC hearing

The employee was cleared within approximately a week — but the WRC found that the process by which he had been identified gave rise to race discrimination.

For employers, the lesson extends far beyond this particular case:

A description is not evidence.
A suspicion is not a finding.
And urgency is not a substitute for an objective process.

Where allegations are serious, employers may need to act quickly — but identification, investigation and suspension decisions should still be evidence-based, proportionate and capable of being independently explained.

We've examined the decision and the key lessons for employers in our latest article.

Read more on the Ormonde Solicitors website.
https://www.ormondesolicitors.ie/race-discrimination-e10000-wrc-award-employer-lessons/

What happens when management becomes frustrated with an employee who repeatedly raises concerns?A recent WRC decision pr...
26/08/2026

What happens when management becomes frustrated with an employee who repeatedly raises concerns?

A recent WRC decision provides an important warning for employers.

A security guard who raised concerns about security cover, fire safety and Garda vetting at an IPAS centre has been awarded €15,200 after the WRC found he was unfairly dismissed and penalised for making protected disclosures.

His employer said he had committed gross misconduct.

But the WRC found:

▪️ No investigation had taken place
▪️ There had been no disciplinary hearing
▪️ The employee had not been given an opportunity to answer the allegation
▪️ No CCTV, incident report or body-camera log was produced
▪️ No direct witness evidence supported the allegation

There was another important factor.

Management had reportedly become frustrated by the frequency of the employee's complaints.

For employers, the lesson is critical:

A worker who repeatedly raises concerns can still be making protected disclosures.

That does not make the employee immune from legitimate disciplinary action.

But any allegation of misconduct needs to be investigated independently, supported by evidence and handled through fair procedures.

We've examined the decision and the key lessons for employers in our latest article.

Read more on the Ormonde Solicitors website.
https://www.ormondesolicitors.ie/security-guard-awarded-e15200-after-protected-disclosures/

Calling someone an “au pair” doesn't take them outside employment law.A Brazilian woman who worked as a live-in au pair ...
25/08/2026

Calling someone an “au pair” doesn't take them outside employment law.

A Brazilian woman who worked as a live-in au pair for approximately 18 weeks has been awarded more than €10,700 following a Workplace Relations Commission case.

The arrangement was originally intended to involve around 35½ hours per week.

However, the worker told the WRC that her hours and duties quickly increased — and that she was later asked to sign a contract providing for 70 hours for the same monthly payment.

The Adjudication Officer ultimately found that she met the criteria to be considered an employee.

The case is an important reminder for employers that the reality of a working relationship matters more than the label attached to it.

That can apply not only to au pairs, but also to domestic workers, casual staff and other arrangements employers may view as informal.

Employers should be checking:

▪️ Employment status
▪️ Written terms
▪️ Actual hours worked
▪️ Minimum wage compliance
▪️ Breaks and rest periods
▪️ Annual leave
▪️ Changes to duties
▪️ Record keeping

There is also another significant lesson: the respondents did not attend the WRC hearing, leaving the worker's evidence uncontested.

We've looked at the decision and the practical lessons for employers in our latest article.

Read more on the Ormonde Solicitors website.
https://www.ormondesolicitors.ie/au-pair-awarded-e10700-employment-law-lessons-for-employers/

A mandatory retirement age is not automatically unlawful.But neither is a clause in an employment contract enough, on it...
24/08/2026

A mandatory retirement age is not automatically unlawful.

But neither is a clause in an employment contract enough, on its own, to make it lawful.

That distinction is worth noting following recent Labour Court decisions involving retained firefighters.

In one case, the Labour Court overturned a €15,000 WRC age discrimination award after finding the retirement requirement to be appropriate and necessary.

A second case also demonstrated the importance of clear contractual wording, with the Court finding that the employee's original terms unambiguously provided for the applicable retirement arrangements.

For employers, there are two important lessons.

First, clarity matters.

Your contracts and retirement policies should accurately reflect the arrangements you actually operate.

Second, justification matters.

If an employee is being required to leave employment because of age, the employer needs to understand and be capable of explaining the legitimate objective behind that requirement.

And the issue has become even more important following the commencement of the Employment (Contractual Retirement Ages) Act 2025 in June.

We've examined the decisions and what employers should be reviewing in our latest article.

Read more on the Ormonde Solicitors website.
https://www.ormondesolicitors.ie/mandatory-retirement-ages-what-employers-need-to-know/

Remote Working Does Not Mean Working From AnywhereA recent WRC decision is a timely reminder for employers that remote w...
20/08/2026

Remote Working Does Not Mean Working From Anywhere

A recent WRC decision is a timely reminder for employers that remote working does not automatically give employees the right to work from another country.

If you offer remote or hybrid working, it is important to make sure your arrangements are properly documented and supported by clear policies.

Employers should consider:
• the employee’s contractual place of work
• whether approval is required before working abroad
• tax and data security issues
• the wider employment law implications
• how any concerns are investigated and documented

The case shows the importance of having the right wording in contracts, a clear overseas-working policy and a fair process if concerns arise.

If your business offers remote working, now may be a good time to review whether your contracts and policies are keeping pace.

Address

No. 4, Canada Street
Waterford
NONE

Opening Hours

Monday 9am - 5:30pm
Tuesday 9am - 5:30pm
Wednesday 9am - 5:30pm
Thursday 9am - 5:30pm
Friday 9am - 5pm

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Employment Matters posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Practice

Send a message to Employment Matters:

Shortcuts

Share

Category