Ireland

The Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) and the Labour Court (the “Court”) each recently issued a decision in Conor Gilligan v Derrin Group Management Limited (ADJ-00058189) (WRC decision) and Accountancy & Business College (Ireland) Limited t/a Dublin Business School v Amir Sajad Esmaeily (UD/24/134) (Labour Court decision) which provide useful guidance on a Complainant’s duty to mitigate their financial loss in claims for unfair dismissal and the consequences where they have not appropriately mitigated their loss. Conor Gilligan v Derrin Group Management Limited (ADJ-00058189) Facts: The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent as CEO in July 2022. The Complainant was dismissed on 8th November 2024 for alleged gross misconduct and brought a claim for unfair dismissal and argued that his dismissal was substantively and procedurally unfair. The Respondent, which dealt with the construction of residential properties, stated that he was not unfairly dismissed and without prejudice to the foregoing, argued that the Complainant had contributed to his dismissal and failed to sufficiently mitigate his loss. The Respondent argued that the Complainant had delayed in looking for work following his dismissal in November 2024 and the 17 applications (3 of which were board appointments) he had made were not sufficient. The Complainant stated that he had received a provisional offer of employment in January 2025, however it fell through. The Complainant also confirmed that he did not limit his applications to CEO applications and that his current role was that of an MD reporting into the CEO at a lower salary. Decision: The WRC Adjudicator, Brid Deering, determined that the Respondent had failed to establish substantial grounds for the dismissal and did not follow fair procedures. The Complainant was also found not to have contributed to his dismissal. The Adjudicator deemed compensation was the appropriate remedy for the Complainant’s unfair dismissal, subject to the statutory cap of 104 weeks’ remuneration. In determining the mitigation of loss of the Complainant, the Adjudicator considered the decision in Sheehan v Continental Administration Company Limited (UD/858/1999) “The Claimant is obligated to seek and secure such measures that will minimise the losses potentially sustainable. In other words the Claimant must reasonably avoid the consequences of the Respondent’s wrongful act of dismissal. Thus, the Tribunal by virtue of section 7 (2) (c) is required to have regard to “.. the measures (if any) adopted by the employee or, as the case may be, his failure to adopt measures, to mitigate the costs aforesaid...”  In considering the element of mitigation under section 7 (2) (c) it is necessary to establish: What steps (if any) the Claimant took to lessen the losses sustained; Were the steps so taken, reasonable, adequate and sufficient; and Ought the Claimant to have taken other steps, not necessarily obvious steps, which a reasonably careful and reasonably prudent employee, would have taken? In assessing the loss the Tribunal is conscious of the fact that the Claimant cannot recover for losses that could have been reduced or off-set by a course of action which the Claimant ought reasonably to have undertaken . . .   the issue is not a question of what the Claimant could have done, but rather what he could reasonably have been expected to do . . . . ” The Adjudicator also noted the decision of the Labour Court in Q-park Ireland Limited v. Fitzpatrick (UDD2135), that it is a well-established principle that a dismissed employee’s time is not their own and they are required to apply part of every normal working day to securing alternative employment. While the Respondent in the case argued that the Complainant failed to mitigate his loss; the Adjudication Officer was satisfied that following his dismissal in November 2024 the Complainant made reasonable and sufficient efforts to secure alternative employment, having regard to his senior executive status and the limited availability of comparable roles. It was noted that the Complainant had registered with a recruitment agency within a month of his dismissal. The Complainant then secured a first interview in January 2025 for the position of CEO. He had a second interview in February 2025, however he was informed in March 2025 that he had not being successful but was thanked for the “significant time and effort [he] invested throughout the interview process”. For the remainder of March 2025, the Complaint interviewed/applied for three further senior positions and registered with Public Jobs. From April to June the Complainant registered with other agencies and platforms and applied for four to six positions each month. Efforts made by the Complainant in September 2025 resulted in him securing a position in October 2025. In calculating financial loss, the Adjudication Officer determined that the Complainant should be compensated in full for his actual loss, with the deduction of the six‑month contractual notice period, which was awarded separately under a Payment of Wages claim. Actual loss was therefore limited to 23 weeks’ net pay from May 2025 to September 2025, amounting to €51,169.94. The Complainant was also paid €715.50 less weekly in his new position than his previous position with the Respondent. Although ongoing prospective loss was accepted, the Adjudicator did not accept that it should be until retirement age. The Adjudicator noted the Complainant’s age, seniority of position, likelihood of future pay increases, likelihood of other opportunities to mitigate his loss prior to retirement and awarded two years’ prospective loss as just and equitable, in the amount of €74,412. The total compensation awarded for the unfair dismissal was €125,581.94. Accountancy & Business College (Ireland) Limited t/a Dublin Business School v Amir Sajad Esmaeily (UD/24/134) Facts: This case was an appeal by Mr Amir Sajad Esmaeily (the “Complainant”) from a decision of the WRC in relation to the quantum of the award from his unfair dismissal claim. The Complainant was awarded €53,000 in compensation in the WRC. The Complainant had been employed as a lecturer by the Respondent from 2018 until his employment was terminated on 3 February 2023 for breach of company policies. The Complainant argued that the compensation awarded was inadequate and “did not reflect the impact and duration of his losses”, as his annual income had consistently exceeded €91,000. The Complainant submitted that he had applied for more than 65 roles prior to the WRC hearing and a further 51 roles prior to the Labour Court hearing in February 2026, in both academic and corporate sectors. The Complainant obtained two part-time lecturing positions and earned approximately €52,000 in the two years from his dismissal, far lower than the €185,00 he would have earned had he still been employed by the Respondent. The Complainant submitted that in total he had made 114 applications, yet the WRC award was considerably lower than that awarded in comparable cases where few applications were made to demonstrate sufficient efforts to mitigate loss. The Respondent had accepted that fair procedures were not followed in terminating the Complainant’s employment and conceded that the dismissal was unfair. On that basis, the Complainant contended that a just and equitable award should be in the range of €150,000. The Respondent submitted that the Complainant failed to mitigate his losses in an adequate manner, stating that it appeared he had only applied for 36 positions from February 2023 to August 2024, and none outside his area of expertise Artificial Intelligence /data analyst and very few positions outside academia. The Respondent also noted that there was several months where no applications were made and in 2024 there was only evidence of 5 applications. The Respondent argued that this fell short of the test established in Sheehan and Continental Administration Company Limited UD 858/1999 The Respondent also noted the decision in Murphy v Independent News & Media UD841/2013, which found that the claimant limited her search for alternative work to her area of expertise only and her award of compensation was reduced as a result. Decision: The Court noted from the decision in Sheehan what was required to be established when considering mitigation and “the issue is not a question of what the Claimant could have done, but rather what he could reasonably have been expected to do”. It is then for the Respondent to show that the Complainant did not act reasonably in all the circumstances to minimise his loss. In considering whether the Complainant could have done more to offset his loss, the Court accepted that the Complainant gave credible evidence of his job applications in 2023 and 2024. The Court also accepted that it was reasonable to focus his initial job search efforts to his academic areas of expertise and noted that when this proved unsuccessful the Complainant expanded his applications outside of academia. The Court was of the view that having regard to all the circumstances, the Complainant had made reasonable efforts to mitigate his loss. However, the Court was “not fully satisfied that the efforts made were sufficient and adequate in nature to mitigate fully against all losses incurred”. The Court noted the limited evidence provided to mitigate his loss since 2024 and several months where no applications were made. The maximum award payable was €182,266 (two year’s remuneration), with the adjustment of the earnings the Complainant received for his part-time lecturing positions of €52,000. The Court considered both the mitigating and aggravating factors and determined the appropriate amount of compensation was €104,000 being just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances. Takeaway for Employers: These recent decisions from the WRC and Labour Court underline that mitigation of loss remains a significant factor in the assessment of compensation for unfair dismissal. However, it is not the only factor and the discretion provided by the wording just and equitable in all the circumstances was exercised by the Labour Court in their findings in the case above. While an employee is expected to take reasonable steps to secure alternative employment, the adequacy of those efforts will be assessed in light of their individual circumstances, including seniority, expertise and the availability of comparable roles. For employers, the key point is that any argument on failure to mitigate should be supported by clear documentary evidence, including gaps in job-search activity, limited applications, or a failure to broaden the search over time. However, these decisions also demonstrate that even where mitigation efforts are found to be less than fully sufficient, substantial awards may still be made. Accordingly, fair procedures and substantive justification for dismissal remain an employer’s primary protection, with mitigation arguments operating mainly to reduce, rather than eliminate an award of compensation. Links to Decisions: Labour Court Decision - Accountancy & Business College (Ireland) Limited t/a Dublin Business School v Amir Sajad Esmaeily (UD/24/134) WRC Decision - Conor Gilligan v Derrin Group Management Limited (ADJ-00058189)   Authors- Ethna Dillon and Anne O’Connell 24th April 2026 AOC Solicitors 19-22 Baggot Street Lower Dublin 2 www.aocsolicitors.ie

In Caroline O’Connell v Lionbridge International Unlimited Company (ADJ-00057077), the Workplace Relations Commission (the “WRC”), awarded the Complainant €142,984 in compensation for unfair dismissal, which figure represented the full value of her financial loss. The Adjudicator, Breffni O’Neill, was satisfied that the Complainant’s financial loss arose entirely from the Respondent’s actions. Facts:- The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent in June 2000, where she worked up until her employment was terminated, purportedly by reason of redundancy as of 8th November 2024. The Complainant had a long successful career with the Respondent, having been promoted several times during her employment. At the time her employment was terminated, she was working in the role of Managing Director, EMA GLT. The Complainant claimed that her dismissal was unfair, which the Respondent conceded. The WRC decision therefore focused solely on the issue of redress. Decision: The Adjudicator decided that compensation was the appropriate remedy. The Adjudicator went on to calculate the Complainant’s actual “renumeration” in accordance with the Unfair Dismissals Acts. The Complainant earned a base salary of €275,000 at the time of her dismissal. She was also in receipt of an employer pension contribution, health insurance and her mobile phone and plan were paid for by her employer. The Adjudicator found that all these elements constituted “renumeration” for the purposes of the Unfair Dismissals Acts. The Complainant argued that her unvested Restricted Stock Units (“RSUs”) and her annual bonus should also be deemed “renumeration”. Firstly, the Adjudicator considered the bonus point and the company’s Discretionary Management Bonus Plan. The Adjudicator made a distinction between guaranteed or contractual earnings, and payments which remain contingent upon the employer’s discretion. Despite the Complainant having a reasonable expectation to her annual bonus, the bonus was nevertheless discretionary and did not form part of her renumeration. In relation to the RSUs, the Adjudicator found that the Restricted Stock Unit Agreement was with a different corporate entity in the United States and not with the Respondent company that employed the Complainant. This was a “separate corporate arrangement” and therefore the RSUs were not held to constitute part of the Complainant’s renumeration and could not therefore be taken into consideration in calculating her financial loss. The Complainant also argued that expenses relating to private counselling following her loss of employment and pension advice fees should be included as part of the award. This was rejected by the Adjudicator, as such losses cannot be said to constitute “renumeration” that would have been earned under contract but for the dismissal. Considering the above, the Adjudicator found that the basis for the calculation of compensation included the Complainant’s annual salary, the employer pension contribution, the private health cover, and the mobile phone expenses which totalled €290,766 per annum. The Complainant was out of work for just over 25 weeks, resulting in financial loss of €142,984. On 6th May 2025 she commenced working in a new role on a higher salary than her previous role. Therefore, her financial loss ended on that date. The Adjudicator was satisfied that the Complainant’s efforts to mitigate her loss were satisfactory, noting that the Complainant was employed at a very senior level with few comparable roles available. The Complainant produced evidence of engagement with professional contacts and recruiters which established reasonable and proactive efforts to mitigate her loss. Finally, the Adjudicator considered whether the statutory redundancy payment that had been made to the Complainant should be deducted from the compensatory award, as the Respondent argued that it should. The Adjudicator noted that there is conflicting and inconsistent case law on this matter. However, the Adjudicator was satisfied that the legislation provides a clear definition of “financial loss,”, and in his view: “It is only in circumstances where a loss of up to the statutory maximum of 104 weeks has been calculated—creating a real risk of double recovery—that the question of deducting statutory redundancy properly arises.” There was no question of “double recovery” in this case. As the Complainant’s financial loss was only 25.5 weeks, the Adjudicator did not consider it appropriate to make a deduction from the award. He regarded the statutory redundancy payment as a “distinct statutory entitlement” which accrued over the course of the Complainant’s service with the Respondent. As there was no reason to apply a reduction to the award, the Adjudicator directed the Respondent to pay the Complainant €142,984, the Complainant’s total loss, for the unfair dismissal. Takeaway for Employers: This decision highlights the potentially significant financial exposure arising from unfair dismissals, particularly at senior executive level. This decision provides guidance on the calculation of “remuneration” and financial loss under the Unfair Dismissals Acts. Employers should note that benefits such as employer pension contributions and private health insurance may all be treated as remuneration when assessing compensation, increasing the value of any award granted by the WRC. The decision is particularly interesting in respect of the finding that the Complainant’s unvested RSUs did not form part of her remuneration for the purpose of the Unfair Dismissals Acts. The WRC reached a different conclusion in Gary Rooney v X Internet Unlimited Company ADJ -00044246. However, interestingly, although the reasoning is somewhat different, the Labour Court has now overturned that decision and found that Mr Rooney’s unvested RSUs did not form part of his remuneration and should not be taken into consideration in calculating his financial loss in X Internet Unlimited Company and Gary Rooney UDD2612. Please see our article on this decision entitled “Labour Court Reduces WRC’s Record Award and Clarifies Calculation of Remuneration”. Another particularly interesting aspect of the decision was the treatment of the Complainant’s  statutory redundancy payment. The Adjudicator acknowledged the lack of clarity in this area, arising from conflicting decisions on the point. However, in this case he found that redundancy is a distinct statutory entitlement and will not necessarily be deducted from an award of compensation for unfair dismissal. Where an employee’s actual financial loss is less than the statutory cap of 104 weeks’ remuneration, employers cannot assume that redundancy payments will be deducted from an award of compensation. This remains an area to watch. Finally, while this decision demonstrates that a Complainant’s mitigation efforts will be closely examined, it also underlines that even a relatively short period of unemployment can result in a high-value award where the Complainant is a high earner. For employers, the primary protection remains ensuring that redundancies are justified and procedurally fair, rather than relying on an employee’s mitigation or post-termination earnings to limit exposure. Legal advice is recommended.   Link - https://workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2026/march/adj-00057077.html   Authors:-  Jenny Wakely, Jane Holian   Anne O’Connell Solicitors 19-22 Baggot Street Lower Dublin 2   www.aocsolicitors.ie

The recent Labour Court decision of X Internet Unlimited Company v. Gary Rooney, arises from an appeal of a Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) decision, (ADJ -00044246) in which the Complainant was found to be unfairly dismissed and was awarded the sum of €550,131. See our previous article on that decision here. Both parties appealed this decision to the Labour Court on 9 September 2024 in accordance with Section 8A of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 – 2015. On appeal, the Labour Court reduced the Complainant’s award to €201,458. Facts: The Complainant was an employee of the Respondent from 23 September 2013 up to when his employment ended in December 2022. Following Elon Musk’s acquisition of the Respondent in October 2022, employees widely received the ‘fork in the road email’. This required them, within 46 hours to opt in to remain in employment under new, unspecified terms, failing to do so, would be confirming their decision to resign. The Complainant did not opt in, citing he had not been provided with sufficient information to make an informed decision. The Respondent treated this as a resignation. The Complainant lodged a complaint with the WRC under the Unfair Dismissals Act seeking compensation based on his full earnings including bonus and Restricted Stock Units (RSUs). The WRC found that he had been unfairly dismissed and awarded him €550,131. Both parties appealed this decision to the Labour Court. The Labour Court had to determine whether, firstly a dismissal took place rather than a resignation, and if so, whether compensation is the appropriate form of redress. It also had to determine what formed part of his remuneration for the purposes of the Unfair Dismissal Act. Decision: The Labour Court found that the Respondent, in setting an arbitrary deadline for a response to the ‘fork in the road’ email did so knowing that employees were being asked to sign up to unknown terms and conditions of their employment. In response to the Respondent’s defence that an FAQ was issued that referenced what would happen if an employee did not tick the box but did not want to resign, no clarification on this was issued within the said arbitrary deadline. Additionally, it was found that there was no justification for limiting the response time to 46/68 hours. The Court emphasised that resignation  is not passive or conveyed by silence and rejected the Respondent’s position that failure to opt in amounted to a voluntary resignation. The Court found that the conduct of the Respondent was not reasonable. The Court found the Complainant to have been unfairly dismissed. The Court having established an unfair dismissal occurred, considered the appropriate measure of compensation for the Complainant. It was agreed that the Complainant’s basic salary including pension contributions and health and dental insurance for 2022 was €151,225. The significant question was whether his bonus and RSU’s should be taken into consideration as part of his remuneration in respect of compensation under the Act. The Complainant did not dispute that no bonuses were paid to any staff in 2022. Accordingly, even if he had remained in employment, he would not have received a bonus. In light of this, the Court determined that any bonus should not form part of the calculation of his remuneration. In respect of the RSUs, they were available to staff at a certain level in the Respondent. To receive the RSU’s, the Complainant had to sign a contract on each occasion he was granted them. The Labour Court referenced a number of clauses from those contracts including the following: Termination: “Participants right to vest in the RSU under the plan, if any, will terminate as effective as of the date that participation is no longer actively employed or providing services and will not be extended by any notice period” Section 10 nature of grant: “the grant of the restricted stock units is voluntary and occasional and does not create any contractual or other right to receive future grants of restricted stock units, or benefits In lieu of restricted stock units” “all decisions with respect to future restricted stock units or other grants, if any, will be at the sole discretion of the company” The Complainant sought to rely on Section 13 of the Act which deems that a provision would be void if it was to exclude or limit the application or was inconsistent with the provision of the Act. The Court having reviewed the documents found that nothing in the agreement seeks to exclude or limit the application of the Act or is inconsistent with it, finding that the provisions did not prevent an employee taking a case under the Unfair Dismissals Act..  In response to the Complainant’s claim that he never sought legal advice before signing up to any of the RSUs, the Court determined that he read and understood a description of the plan which he entered into and benefited on each occasion from it and is bound by the agreement. Therefore, the Court found that the RSUs were to be excluded from the calculation of remuneration for the purpose of compensation under the Act. The Court found that the Complainant did not in any way contribute to his dismissal and was satisfied that the Complainant sufficiently mitigated his loss. The Court awarded the Complainant’s loss of earnings from December 2022 up until he obtained alternative employment in September 2023, amounting to €113,419. It also awarded the monthly difference of €1,777 in the salary of the new job calculated up until July 2025 giving a loss of €47,988. In August 2025 the Complainant received a pay increase, giving a monthly difference of €1,355 over six months until the Labour Court hearing, totalling a loss of €8,010.00. These figures total to an amount of €167,417. The Court took into account the fact it took over 2 years for the Complainant to get a pay increase in his new job and therefore awarded prospective losses for 2 years of €32,041, bringing the total compensation awarded to €201,458. Takeaway for Employers: This case is particularly notable as it represents a significant recalibration of how remuneration is assessed for the purposes of calculating someone’s financial loss in an Unfair Dismissals claim. The Labour Court has emphasised clear contractual wording excluding RSUs from ‘normal remuneration’. The decision suggests contractual drafting in relation to such schemes is decisive so long as there is consideration to the employee and the agreement does not limit the employee’s rights to take a claim in relation to his/her dismissal. Employers operating bonus schemes, share or other incentive plans should review their documentation to ensure they can be relied upon. This decision materially reduces the potential value of claims for senior employees with complex remuneration structures but may form part of negotiations on hiring key employees in the future.   Link: https://workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2026/april/udd2612.html   Authors- Abigail Ansell and Anne O’Connell   29th April 2026 AOC Solicitors 19-22 Baggot Street Lower Dublin 2   www.aocsolicitors.ie  

Published in the Irish Employment Law Journal 2025, volume 22 Issue 4, pgs 98-99.  Readers will recall our article in this journal earlier this year¹ on the Opinion of Advocate General Emiliou, in Kingdom of Denmark v European Parliament and Council of the European Union concerning Directive (EU) 2022/2041 on adequate minimum wages in the European Union ("EU") (the "AMW Directive"). On 11 November 2025, the Court of Justice of the European Union ("CJEU") issued its judgment² in which it annuls part of the AMW Directive while confirming the validity of the majority of it. This case was where the Kingdom of Denmark, supported by the Kingdom of Sweden, asked the CJEU to annul the AMW Directive in its entirety, on the grounds that the European Parliament and the Council lacked competency to adopt the AMW Directive. The Law Article 153 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ("TFEU") provides that the EU shall support and complement the activities of the Member States in certain fields, such as working conditions, representation and collective defence of the interests of workers and employers. However, subs.5 provides that the: "provisions of this Article shall not apply to pay, the right of association, the right to strike or the right to impose lock-outs." As its principal head of claim, the Kingdom of Denmark submitted to the CJEU that the AMW Directive directly interferes with the exclusions on pay and the right of association provided for in subs.5 above. The Advocate General's Opinion The Advocate General ("AG") in his opinion stated that as the AMW Directive has as its object the regulation of pay, it directly breached the pay exclusion in art.153(5) of TFEU. However, in relation to the right of association exclusion, the AG did not agree that the right of association equals the right to collective bargaining. The AG rejected the argument that the AMW Directive has as its object the regulation of the right to association. Ultimately, the AG concluded that the European Parliament and the European Council had indeed acted in breach of their jurisdiction by legislating in the area of pay, specifically excluded from the EU's competence and proposed that the entire AMW Directive be annulled on that point. The Judgment The CJEU did not agree with the AG that the entire Directive should be annulled but alternatively decided to annul only part of the Directive. However, it did agree with the opinion of the AG in that the exclusion of the EU's competence by the TFEU in respect of pay and the right of association does not extend to any sort of link with those areas being provided for in EU provisions. It also stated that the exclusion does not cover any measure which, in practice, would have effects or repercussions on the level of pay. The exclusion applies only to direct interference by EU law in the determination of pay and in the right of association. The CJEU referred to a number of decisions in respect of its decision. In respect of art.4, which provides for measures to promote collective bargaining on wage-setting, the CJEU found that it is merely a means of achieving the main objective of the AMW Directive rather than being a distinct purpose of it. Article 4 does not require Member States to reach the threshold of 80 per cent of collective bargaining coverage, but to establish a "framework" of enabling conditions for collective bargaining and draw up an "action plan" to promote such bargaining with the involvement of the social partners. It found that, as art.4 does not oblige Member States to require a larger number of workers to join trade unions or to declare a collective agreement universally applicable, then it does not amount to direct interference by EU law in the determination of pay or the right of association. However, in respect of art.5, the CJEU found that art.5(2) amounted to direct interference by EU law in the determination of pay within the European Union. It found that art.5(2) requires Member States with statutory minimum wages to ensure the use of the four elements listed in that provision in respect of the setting and updating of the statutory minimum wage. Those four elements are: "the purchasing power of statutory minimum wages, taking into account the cost of living"; "the general level of wages and their distribution"; "the growth rate of wages"; and "long-term national productivity levels and developments". The CJEU also found that the portion of art.5(3) which requires that Member States that use an automatic mechanism for indexation adjustments of wages not to decrease the level of statutory minimum wage amounts to a direct interference by EU law in the determination of pay within the European Union. The remaining provisions of art.5 and arts 6 to 8 were found to provide for measures establishing a framework for the setting of adequate minimum wages with a view to improving living and working conditions in the EU and in relation to the scope of "working conditions" and fall within the competence of the EU. Based on the above, the CJEU annulled art.5(2) and the part of the sentence "provided that the application of that mechanism does not lead to a decrease of the statutory minimum wage" in art.5(3) on the ground that those provisions fall within the exclusions of the EU's competences under art.153(5) TFEU. The annulment of art.5(2) necessitated the annulment of the part of the sentence in the fifth sentence of art.5(1) "including the elements referred to in paragraph 2". As the Kingdom of Denmark was successful in part of its application, it was awarded one-third of its costs, but it had to pay two-thirds of the costs of the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. Conclusion The social parties are delighted with the decision, as it did not have any impact on the promotion of collective bargaining. This is underway in Ireland with the publication of Ireland's Action Plan to Promote Collective Bargaining 2026-2030 in early November 2025. However, the European Union (Adequate Minimum Wages) Regulations 2024 (S.I. No. 633 of 2024), which was enacted in November 2024, amended the National Minimum Wage Act and included the four elements set out in the annulled art.5(2) of the AMW Directive. Therefore, a change in this legislation may be required as this amendment no longer has a valid legal foundation. Irish Employment Law Journal – Volume 22, No.4, 2025 Anne O’Connell Solicitors 19-22 Lower Baggot Street Dublin 2. www.aocsolicitors.ie