Ireland

The Government’s new statutory retirement savings system will go live from 1st January 2026. The scheme known as MyFutureFund, will be overseen and administered by the National Automatic Enrolment Retirement Savings Authority (NAERSA). NAERSA will identify which employees meet the eligibility criteria for auto-enrolment using Revenue payroll data and will enrol them, which should result in minimal administrative work for employers. Employees will be enrolled automatically in the new pension scheme if they are: * Aged between 23 years and 60 years; * Not currently part of a pension plan; and * Earn €20,000 or more per year (there is an earnings threshold of €80,000). Employees will have the option to opt-out (after 6 months, but before 8 months) or suspend their participation in the scheme. Employees who are under 23 or over 60 years of age, or who earn less that €20,000 a year, may opt into the scheme, with all contributions from their employer(s), the employee and the State applying. The fixed contribution rates from the employer, the employee and the State will be phased over a period of 10 years and are set out below: Year of the auto-enrolment scheme Employee Contribution Rate Employer pays Government pays 1 to 3 1.5% 1.5% 0.5% 4 to 6 3% 3% 1% 7 to 9 4.5% 4.5% 1.5% 10 and after 6% 6% 2% Employees who are already a member of an occupational pension scheme or trust, Retirement Annuity Contract (RAC) or have a Personal Retirement Savings Account (PRSA) or Pan-European Personal Pension Product (PEPP), which is recorded in payroll, will not be auto-enrolled and will not be able to opt in based on that employment. However, where an employee has a second employment where pension contributions are not paid, the employee can be auto enrolled or opt into the scheme in respect of that second employment if they meet the eligibility requirements. Employers and employees should be aware that when an employee has multiple jobs, NAERSA will take into account the combined earnings to determine eligibility for auto-enrolment and an employee will be enrolled for any job without existing pension coverage if the total earnings are over €20,000. Takeaway and Considerations for Employers: Employers, if they have not done so already, need to ensure that they meet their auto-enrolment obligations. Failure to do so will result in penalties and possible prosecution. Employers should consider: * Review existing pension schemes – employers with existing pension schemes in place should ensure that their existing scheme qualifies for exemption. Employers should bear in mind that any employees who are not part of an existing pension scheme will be auto-enrolled if they meet the eligibility criteria. * Updating payroll software – employers should update their payroll software and should ensure that it can take instructions for enrolment, calculate and pay employer and employee contributions to NAERSA. * Budgeting for contributions – contributions will commence in January 2026, with an incremental increase over the next ten years, employers should ensure that they have budgeted appropriately. * Clear communications with employees – employers will be obliged to inform employees when they are first enrolled. Employers are also reminded that it is an offence to take any action that hinders or attempts to hinder an employee from participating in the MyFutureFund scheme. The employer portal contains sample correspondence that employers can use to issue to employees. * Employer Portal is now open – As of 1st December 2025,the MyFutureFund employer portal is open and employers must: 1. Complete their profile on the MyFutureFund Portal before the end of December. 2. Set up a payment method. 3. Run payroll as usual. 4. Employers should also keep an eye out for NAERSA notifications and communications via the portal. Links – MyFutureFund Portal * Auto-Enrolment Retirement Savings System for Employers – Department of Social Protection Authors- Ethna Dillon, Jenny Wakely Anne O’Connell Solicitors 19-22 Lower Baggot Street Dublin 2. www.aocsolicitors.ie

In the case of Patrick Donnellan and Eircom Limited (ADJ-00051860) the Complainant brought a complaint under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, challenging the Respondent’s enforcement of a mandatory retirement age of 65 and its refusal of his application for an extension of his contract. Facts: Prior to his retirement in April 2024, the Complainant had been employed by the Respondent (and/or its predecessor) for 44 years. The Complainant submitted that his contract of employment did not specify a retirement age. He submitted that it made reference to 65 in terms of receipt of pension but there was no requirement to retire at that age. The Complainant was employed as a field technician. The Complainant submitted that he had substantial financial commitments for example putting a family member through third level education and was not in a position to retire at 65. Both sides acknowledged that he sought an extension of his contract but that this was refused citing factors such as intergenerational fairness, health and safety concerns and succession. He appealed this internally within the Respondent but his appeal was unsuccessful. The Respondent gave evidence at hearing to the effect that the Respondent’s defined benefit pension scheme has historically been drawn down at age 65 and that retirement at 65 is custom and practice across the organisation. Evidence was given of the Respondent’s retirement policy having been reviewed back in 2020 following external benchmarking and union engagement. Evidence was also provided around the rationale behind the retirement age of 65, naming succession planning, career progression, headcount management and the need to maintain an age balanced workforce. The Respondent submitted that 70% of its 900 staff are employed as field technicians (like the Complainant) and 60% of field technicians are currently over the age of 60. The Respondent submitted there is an aim of avoiding sudden loss of skilled staff.  Reference was also made to the field technician role being a “safety critical” role. The Respondent outlined the succession planning in place for the Complainant’s territory and the hiring of an apprentice in 2023 and in 2024 to address anticipated retirement in the Clare area. A witness for the Respondent gave evidence that “retirement age of 65 was to support intergenerational fairness, career progression, workplace diversity and health and safety, particularly relevant in physically demanding roles like those in open Eir, where 65% of the workforce is over 60, and in Clare, 88% are over 60”. The Respondent gave evidence that the Complainant’s annual salary after 44 years of service had been €48,463.11 and that upon retirement, he received a tax-free lump sum of €68,087.34 and an annual pension of €22,695.00. Decision: In this decision, the WRC Adjudication Officer Úna Glazier- Farmer relied on the current legal position on retirement age as set out in Seamus Mallon v The Minister for Justice, Ireland and the Attorney General [2024] IESC 20 (see end of this article for a link to our previous article on Mallon). The Adjudication Officer referred to the Supreme Court’s finding in Mallon that a mandatory retirement age does not constitute unlawful age discrimination where it pursues a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim is appropriate and proportionate in accordance with article 6)1) of the Directive 2000/78/EC and the relevant CJEU jurisprudence. The Adjudicator listed some examples of what can constitute a legitimate aim as set out by the Supreme Court and referred to the Supreme Court having found that the avoidance of an individual capacity assessment has been recognised as a legitimate aim in favour of justifying a general retirement age. The Adjudication Officer also referred to another recent WRC Decision on the topic of retirement age namely Valentine Reilly v Meath County Council ADJ-00050118 and the analysis of the Adjudication Officer in that case. Ultimately, the Adjudication Officer found that in the instant case there had been a “consistent and systematic” and “coherent” application of the mandatory retirement rules by the Respondent, that the Respondent’s legitimate aims were identified in a letter to the Complainant communicating its decision to refuse an extension of his contract and were based on intergenerational fairness, succession planning, and health and safety. She noted the Respondent’s Retirement Policy which also refers to maintaining an age balance in the workplace. She found all four aims were noted by the Supreme Court in Mallon as legitimate. The Adjudication Officer relied on the Supreme Court’s finding that an employer is “better placed than the court to assess what [is] necessary or appropriate for the effective operation of the coronial system” and found that this limits the role of the WRC to consider whether the Respondent’s judgement appeared to be unreasonable. She found that the Respondent is best placed to assess what is necessary or proportionate for the effective operation of its business. The Adjudication Officer found the Respondent had acted reasonably in accordance with its Retirement Policy and the mandatory retirement age was objectively and reasonably justified by legitimate aims. She commented that while it is entirely understandable that the ongoing costs associated with supporting his family are substantial, in the circumstances, the Respondent’s mandatory retirement age of 65 was appropriate and necessary in light of the pension provision. Takeaway for Employers: This decision serves as reminder that while mandatory retirement ages are permissible if they pursue a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and proportionate, they provide fertile ground for dispute and are regularly challenged by employees in the WRC. Employers should consult with their lawyers to ensure they are up to date on the topic of retirement ages and are operating in a manner that is consistent with the findings of the Supreme Court in Mallon. Link  – https://workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2025/october/adj-00051860.html Links to some other recent articles we have written on this topic: https://aocsolicitors.ie/supreme-court-clarifies-law-on-mandatory-retirement-ages/ https://aocsolicitors.ie/recent-decisions-on-mandatory-retirement-highlight-requirement-for-appropriate-contractual-provisions-and-retirement-policies/ Authors – Abigail Ansell and Laura Killelea 30 November 2025 Anne O’Connell Solicitors 19-22 Lower Baggot Street Dublin 2. www.aocsolicitors.ie    

In A Female Complainant v The Health Service Executive (ADJ-00055810), the Workplace Relations Commission (the “WRC”) found that the Complainant was discriminated against by her employer on the grounds of gender. The Adjudicator, Conor Stokes, found that the Complainant was sexually harrassed by a senior colleague for over a year, and that the Respondent did not react robustly enough in order to protect the Complainant. The Adjudicator awarded the Complainant 52 weeks’ remuneration (€86,717) for the effects of the discrimination. Facts: The Complainant is a pharmacist working in a HSE hospital setting. The Complainant lodged an employment equality claim with the WRC on 10th December 2024 alleging gender discrimination and sexual harassment. The Complainant described a series of incidents in which she was sexually harassed by a senior male pharmacist, the first of which took place in May 2023. Further incidents occurred, culminating in an incident in June 2024 during which the senior pharmacist showed her a picture of naked male genitalia while they were along in the pharmacy office together. The Complainant lodged a complaint of sexual harassment the following Monday when her line manager returned to work. The Complainant sent an email to HR in which she sought a formal investigation into seven separate incidents. The Complainant submitted that she was only interviewed more than eight months after making a complaint. She stated that the harasser continued to work in the workplace for over a year while she had to move elsewhere to try and avoid him, and she continued to encounter him in the workplace. The Complainant had to take stress leave twice during that time. The Respondent stated that it was required to give the senior pharmacist due process and noted that he was entitled to natural justice and fairness. It referred to the investigation that was carried out and the report that was issued in respect of the complaint. The investigation found in favour of the Complainant. While the Respondent submitted that it put certain safety measures in place, it accepted that it did not do enough to protect the Complainant. Decision:  The Adjudicator found the Complainant to be credible, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, he found that all the incidents described by the Complainant took place (not just those upheld in the investigation which the senior pharmacist had admitted to). The Adjudicator found that the senior pharmacist repeatedly violated the safeguarding direction put in place by the Respondent. This was confirmed by the Respondent’s witness who confirmed that she had to speak to him repeatedly. The Adjudicator was satisfied that the Complainant had “amply” established facts from which it could be presumed that she had been discriminated against. Accordingly, the burden shifted to the Respondent to prove the contrary. The Respondent did not challenge the Complainant’s version of events and affirmed many of the details given by her including the timeline and how long it took to address matters while the senior pharmacist remained in place and the Complainant was moved around. The Adjudicator found that the Respondent “wholly failed” to take steps to prevent the senior pharmacist from continuing to sexually harass the Complainant. He “repeatedly inserted himself” into the Complainant’s work environment, resulting in the Complainant taking stress-related sick leave. Up to the date of the WRC hearing, 13 months after the sexual harassment had been reported, no disciplinary action had been initiated against the senior pharmacist. The Adjudicator was critical of the relevant HSE policies and the delay, as well as the inadequacy of the safeguarding mechanisms put in place. He concluded that the Respondent did not take such steps as were reasonably practicable to safeguard the Complainant. He found that the Respondent was liable for the discrimination of the Complainant, and was unable to rely on the defence in section 15(3) of the Employment Equality Acts. In considering the appropriate redress, the Adjudicator noted that it is important that any award should serve the purpose of dissuading a potential harasser, of persuading an employer to comply with the legislation, and should be proportionate to the infringement and breach of the Act. The Adjudicator awarded the Complainant compensation in the amount of €86,717, equivalent to 52 weeks’ remuneration, for the effects of the discrimination in this case. Interestingly, the Adjudicator also ordered the Respondent to disregard the two periods of sick leave for work-related stress taken by the Complainant arising from the harassment for the purposes of annual and multi-annual sick leave calculation. Takeaway for Employers: This decision is a strong reminder to employers of their obligations to employees under the Employment Equality Acts. Breaches of employment equality legislation can be very costly for organisations, as awards of compensation are made for the “effects” of the discrimination and are not dependent on loss of earnings, increasing the potential exposure for employers. Employers must ensure that they have robust policies in place that protect the rights and interests of employees who may experience harassment. It is essential that employers ensure that their policies are effectively communicated to employees and appropriate training is advisable. When complaints of harassment or discrimination are made in the workplace, employers should act without delay in order to protect the rights of all parties concerned. Legal advice is recommended in navigating this sensitive area. Link- ADJ-00055810 28th November 2025 Authors – Jane Holian, Jenny Wakely Anne O’Connell Solicitors 19-22 Lower Baggot Street Dublin 2. www.aocsolicitors.ie    

Two of Ireland's respected, Irish-owned law firms, BHSM LLP and OBH Partners, have announced a strategic merger, effective 1 December 2025. The new Firm, BHSM LLP incorporating OBH Partners, brings together two well-established practices with shared values, complementary expertise, and a strong commitment to client service. The merger represents an important milestone for both firms, creating a stronger, growth-focused legal practice with enhanced reach across domestic and international markets.   A Partnership of Equals: This merger unites two firms known for delivering high-quality, partner-led advice. Both BHSM and OBH share a reputation for professionalism, integrity, and accessibility - values that will continue to guide the merged Firm.   Broader Service Offering: Clients will benefit from expanded expertise across corporate, real estate, dispute resolution, insolvency and corporate restructuring, employment, banking and finance, capital markets, construction, and private client.   Depth and Agility: The integration enhances each firm's core strengths, ensuring a continued agile and responsive service offering.   Unified Growth Vision: By combining resources and talent, the merged Firm is positioned to accelerate its growth in the Irish legal market and deliver greater value to clients at home and abroad.   The Firm will be headquartered at BHSM’s office at 76 Baggot Street Lower, Dublin 2, and will comprise 70 legal professionals, including 40 solicitors. BHSM moved into their new premises in 2023 with a strategic view to growing their practice and providing enhanced facilities for their clients.   Leadership and Vision Mark Homan will continue as Managing Partner of the merged Firm, ensuring continuity of leadership and vision. June Hynes and Orlaith O’Brien, Founding Partners of OBH Partners, will work closely with Mark through the merged Firm’s next exciting phase of development.   "This merger brings together two firms with aligned cultures and a shared ambition to deliver exceptional legal service," said Mark Homan, Managing Partner, BHSM. "It marks an exciting next chapter as we combine the talent and experience of both teams under a single, Irish-owned banner, which is becoming a unique feature in this market."   June Hynes, Founding Partner, OBH Partners, added: "The merger between our two established and well-respected law firms allows this new entity to strengthen and expand the service offering, providing expert advice to a combined client base while creating significant potential for future growth. This partnership reinforces our shared commitment to excellence, collaboration, and client success.”   About BHSM LLP BHSM is a full-service, Irish-owned corporate law firm based in Dublin. The Firm provides a comprehensive range of legal services across corporate, real estate, dispute resolution, insolvency and corporate restructuring, employment, banking and finance, construction, and private client, with a focus on delivering practical and strategic advice to domestic and international clients.   About OBH Partners OBH Partners is a leading Irish corporate law firm advising domestic and international clients across a broad range of sectors. With a focus on corporate, commercial, real estate, and banking law, OBH Partners is recognised for its partner-led approach, client focus, and deep understanding of the Irish business landscape.