Ireland

This year Walkers is celebrating 25 years of Walkers operating in Europe – a milestone the firm is proud to mark, reflecting its commitment to the European market and to its ever-expanding European client base. The firm's European story began with the opening of its London office in March 2001, as Walkers’ first international office, establishing a presence in one of the world’s most important financial centres. This laid the foundations for the integrated European platform the firm has today, advising on the laws of the Cayman Islands, British Virgin Islands, Bermuda, Jersey, Guernsey and Ireland. Since 2001, and in particular during the past ten years, the firm has invested significantly into its London, Ireland, Jersey and Guernsey businesses. This investment has been combined with a consistent focus on bringing together market leading lawyers and professionals across all of its disciplines who believe in providing clients with top tier service in a responsive, coordinated and jurisdictionally agnostic manner. The growth in scale of the firm's European business has been phenomenal. The firm's four European offices are now home to over 600 legal and professional services personnel, delivering specialist, integrated advice relating to all aspects of asset management & investment funds, private capital & trusts, banking & finance, corporate, dispute resolution, insolvency & restructuring, employment and regulatory matters, across its six laws, as well as specialist Irish tax advice. The firm is delighted to see that the market leading strength of its European offering, and the coordinated approach it takes to client service, are consistently recognised by its clients as well as the legal directories. In addition to marking 25 years in Europe, this year also sees key milestones across each of the firm's European businesses, including 20 years in Jersey, 10 years in Guernsey and 10 years of Walkers Professional Services in Ireland. Together, these reflect the depth of the firm's long-term investment in Europe and the strength of its integrated offering. Commenting on the milestones, Hughie Wong, managing partner of Walkers' London office, said: 'Celebrating 25 years in Europe is a proud moment for all of us. London was our first step outside the Caribbean and it set the tone for how we operate internationally: operating in the same time zone as our clients, collaborating across offices and focusing on delivering consistently strong outcomes.' 'As we look ahead, we will continue to invest in our people and our platform so we can support clients at the most complex end of the market.' Fraser Hern, head of Walkers' Channel Islands business, added: ‘This year is particularly meaningful for our Channel Islands practice as we mark 20 years in Jersey and 10 years in Guernsey. Our Channel Islands offices form a crucial part of our European platform, supporting clients on complex multi-jurisdictional matters while remaining closely connected to the wider Walkers network. These milestones reflect not only the strength of our local teams, but the benefits of operating as part of an integrated European business.’ Jonathan Sheehan, managing partner of Walkers' Ireland office, said: ‘As we celebrate the milestone anniversaries across our European business, it is a timely opportunity to reflect on the depth of the commitment of our Ireland office to the region. Ireland has become a vital hub within our European offering, and our continued growth here is closely linked to the strength of the platform we have built across the region.’ The firm will recognise these milestones throughout the year, including hosting a client event to celebrate the relationships that have shaped its European journey and continue to drive its success. As the firm moves into the next chapter, it remains focused on strengthening its European offering and continuing to play a leading role in supporting clients with sophisticated, multi-jurisdictional advice.

SK Biotek Ireland Ltd v Shannon Reina (SLD262) is a recent decision by the Labour Court in respect of an appeal of a Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) decision concerning statutory sick pay. The Complainant lodged the original claim under the Sick Leave Act 2022 (the “Act”) in circumstances where she did not receive sick pay under her employer’s sick pay scheme due to a failure to follow their absence management policy, and she did not receive statutory sick pay either. The WRC Adjudicator upheld the Complainant’s claim and awarded her compensation of €500, but on appeal the Labour Court overturned this decision. Facts: The Complainant was employed by the Respondent as a Quality Control Analyst from 14th August 2023 until her resignation with effect from 12th July 2024. The Complainant had a number of certified sickness-related absences during her employment with the Respondent and had previously received a verbal warning for breach of the Respondent’s absence management policy. As the Complainant submitted her complaint to the WRC on 14th July 2024, only one period of sick leave, that between 13th and 17th May 2024 was within the cognisable period for the purpose of her WRC claim. The Respondent operates a sick pay scheme for employees that includes an initial qualifying period of six months’ service. This was outlined in the Complainant’s contract of employment. Following the qualifying period, the scheme provides for payment of basic salary during sick leave up to a maximum of four weeks during any 12 consecutive months, provided that the employee complies with the rules of the sick pay scheme. Thereafter it provides that employees may be eligible to receive 50% pay for a further 4 weeks, subject to terms and conditions. The Complainant was regarded as being ineligible to benefit under the Respondent’s sick pay scheme because she had been found to be in breach of its absence management policy. The Respondent’s position was that it was not subject to the statutory sick pay scheme provided for under the Act because its sick pay scheme confers benefits on employees which, as a whole, are more favourable than statutory sick pay. The Respondent’s legal representative, Des Ryan BL, provided a detailed comparison between the Respondent’s sick pay scheme and the statutory scheme. It was submitted on behalf of the Respondent that under section 9 of the Act, an employer’s sick pay scheme may be regarded as more favourable as a whole than statutory sick pay notwithstanding that it may be subject to certain conditions or eligibility criteria. The Complainant told the Court that she agreed that the Respondent’s sick pay scheme was more favourable than statutory sick pay. Furthermore, she did not dispute the Respondent’s position that she did not meet the eligibility criteria of the Respondent’s scheme in May 2024 due to the extent of her absences from the workplace. However, the Complainant argued that in circumstances where she became disentitled to benefit from the Respondent’s sick pay scheme, the Respondent was obliged to apply the statutory scheme to her. Decision:  The Labour Court did not agree with the Complainant’s contention and found that it was not consistent with the proper interpretation of the Act. The Labour Court found that the words used in section 9(1) of the Act are clear and unambiguous: “The obligations under this Act shall not apply to an employer who provides his or her employees a sick leave scheme where the terms of the scheme confer, over the course of a reference period set out in the scheme, benefits that are, as a whole, more favourable to the employee than statutory sick leave.” [our emphasis]. The Court overturned the WRC Adjudicator’s decision and held that as the Respondent’s sick leave scheme fell squarely within section 9, which exempts the Respondent from the obligation to pay statutory sick pay, the Respondent was not obliged to pay the Complainant sick pay. The Court commented “The section admits of no exceptions to this exemption and does not confer any discretion on this Court to imply any such exception into it.” Takeaway for Employers: This decision makes it clear that employers are permitted to apply conditions to their sick pay scheme, and that where an employee does not qualify for company sick pay, employers are not required to pay statutory sick pay if the company scheme is exempt under section 9 of the Act. While the decision may be regarded as harsh, and indeed the Adjudicator in the original WRC decision regarded the Respondent’s actions as being “somewhat harsh” (in circumstances where the Complainant’s absences through illness were certified and genuine), the decision is in line with the provisions of the Act. The Act makes it clear that contractual sick pay and statutory sick pay don’t run in parallel. It is one or the other. To quote the decision of the Court in relation to section 9, “The section admits of no exceptions to this exemption and does not confer any discretion on this Court to imply any such exception into it.” Since the introduction of statutory sick pay there have been several notable decisions, including Ann Britton v. Amcor Flexibles Ltd as discussed in our most recent newsletter. Employers who have company sick pay schemes should give these schemes careful consideration and seek legal advice to ensure they are not in breach of their obligations under the Act. Links- Labour Court: https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2026/february/sld262.html WRC: https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2025/march/adj-00052845.html Authors – Tara Kelly and Jenny Wakely 27th February 2026 Anne O’Connell Solicitors 19-22 Lower Baggot Street Dublin 2. www.aocsolicitors.ie

In January 2026, a new Code of Practice on Access to Part-Time working (“the Code”) was introduced by the Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”). The new Code aims to provide practical guidance for employers and employees in agreeing part-time working arrangements, reflecting the importance of flexible and inclusive work environments. The Code is underpinned by the Protection of Employees (Part‑Time Work) Act 2001   which prohibits employers from treating part‑time employees less favourably than comparable full‑time employees, unless there are objective grounds for doing so. Key Features of the Code and Best Practice Recommendations Review and Development of Company Policies and Practices   Employers should review their training, performance management and career development policies to ensure that part‑time employees are not disadvantaged and that no direct or indirect barriers impede their progression. The Code encourages employers to proactively identify part‑time working opportunities across all levels. Recruitment When recruiting new employees, employers should consider the content, status, and responsibilities of each new position and whether those roles could be offered on a part-time basis. Requests for Part-time Working The Code advises as best practice that a request for a transfer from full-time working to part-time working and vice versa, or an increase in working hours, should be considered where possible by employers. The Code does however acknowledge that a change to existing working hours is a matter to be agreed between the employee and employer rather than a statutory right. The Code recommends that employers consider establishing a procedure to include the following aspects: - The Application: The employee applicant should set out the reasons for the request and whether it is temporary or permanent. A reasonable timeframe should be given to consider the application. - Relevant Consultation and Discussion: Both the employer and employee should consider all factors relevant to the organisation and personal to the employee which may include, inter alia: personal and family needs of the applicant; the business and operational needs required to meet part-time cover; the urgency of the request; how the proposed revised hours will fit with the employee’s tasks and procedures for reviewing the arrangement. - Decision and Response: A decision should be issued in a timely manner. If the application is successful, the details of the arrangement can be discussed with the employee, and an agreement may be drawn up, to be signed by the parties with any changes to the terms and conditions of employment. If the application is unsuccessful, the grounds for the refusal should be clearly outlined. - Managing the Outcome: If a mutually satisfactory solution is not reached then recourse to an appeal mechanism should be provided. An employer may refuse a request for part-time working if it would have an adverse effect on the operation of the business. The new Code also highlights Section 16 of Employment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2018 which provides a statutory right to banded hours of work, where the contracted hours of an employee do not reflect the actual hours worked by the employee under Section 18A of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997. Training The Code recommends that when considering the time, location and structure of training, the needs of part-time employees should be taken into account where possible. Career Opportunities As best practice the Code recommends that organisations review their training, performance appraisal, and career development policies to ensure that there are no career development barriers, direct or indirect, to the progression of part-time workers in the organisation. Information to Employees and Representative Bodies The Code recommends that employers should regularly review how employees are provided with information on the availability of both part-time and full-time posts. Organisations who have representative bodies in place e.g. staff forums, work council or collective bargaining arrangements should ensure that they are kept informed in relation to their policies and the use of part-time working. Protection from Penalisation The Code provides that employees cannot be penalised for exercising their rights under the Act or for refusing a request from their employer to transfer from full-time work to part-time work or vice versa. Following a successful complaint of penalisation before the WRC, an employee may be entitled to compensation of up to a maximum of 2 years’ remuneration. Take Away for Employers While the Code does not create new legal rights or impose mandatory obligations on employers, it does provide a clear framework for best practice where flexible working has become a significant consideration in a working relationship. The Code is also admissible in evidence in any proceedings before the WRC, the Labour Court or the Civil Courts, and while employers retain the right to refuse requests where legitimate business needs would be adversely affected, the Code does emphasise the importance of consultation, timely decision-making and transparent reasoning to part-time working requests. Links: WRC Code of Practice on Access to Part-Time Work Authors –Ethna Dillon and Jenny Wakely 23 February 2026 Anne O’Connell Solicitors 19-22 Lower Baggot Street Dublin 2. www.aocsolicitors.ie

In Kim Murphy v Ryan’s Investments Unlimited Company t/a Hertz Rent A Car, the Complainant brought a claim to the Workplace Relations (“WRC”) under the Equal Status Act 2000 after she was charged with a €150 ‘valet fee’ due to having her guide dog in the car. The WRC Adjudicator, Gaye Cunningham, found in favour of the Complainant on the basis that the apparent ‘neutral’ provision put the Complainant at a particular disadvantage compared with other persons. Facts: The Complainant Kim Murphy is a registered blind person that relies on her guide dog as her sole mobility aid. The Respondent is a car hire business. The Complainant’s husband entered into a contract with the Respondent and rented a vehicle from the Respondent. Ms Murphy travelled in the vehicle with her guide dog which primarily sat on a towel in the footwell. Upon returning the vehicle on 8 April 2024, the Respondent noted the vehicle was found to be excessively dirty with dog hair, the floor mats wet and a strong odour inside of the vehicle. The Respondent subsequently imposed a €150 valet charge, which the Respondent stated was required as the car had to be sent for extensive cleaning outside their standard preparation procedures. The Complainant’s husband informed the Respondent that the charge was related to the Complainant’s guide dog therefore it was inappropriate to charge them. The Complainant sought a refund of the charge and on 10 April 2024 lodged a complaint with the Respondent. The Respondent wrote back to the Complainant informing her that it could not discuss the matter further with her due to data protection concerns as she was not the main driver of the vehicle. That same day the Respondent wrote to the Complainant’s husband to state that the fee was justified due to the vehicle requiring to be sent for extensive cleaning and was subsequently removed from the fleet whilst this was performed. The Complainant filed a Form ES1 in accordance with the Equal Status Acts 2000 – 2018 alleging that the Respondent unlawfully discriminated her on the grounds of her disability. The Respondent filled out Form ES2 which denied same. The Respondent stated that the fee was justified pursuant to their Terms and Conditions stating, “a rectification charge where the vehicle is returned with the interior in an excessively dirty condition” and not because there was a guide dog in the car. The Respondent further stated the “charge is applied regardless of whomever rents the vehicle.” On 30 September 2024 the Complainant lodged a complaint with the Workplace Relations Commission under the Equal Status Act 2000 alleging discrimination on the ground of disability. Decision: The WRC Adjudicator’s  decision was based on the consideration of the Respondent’s neutral policy setting out the rectification charge applied universally to any customer who returned the car in an unacceptable condition which gave rise to the question -  ‘has the Complainant been discriminated against in circumstances where a person with a disability or different disability would be subjected to the same treatment?’ In relation to the question as to whether the Respondent provided the Complainant with a service in the circumstance where her husband entered the contract with the Respondent, the Complainant’s submissions referenced the analogy where a family eats at a restaurant with one member making the booking and paying the bill, the other family members eating there are unquestionably in receipt of the service. The Adjudicator made reference to Section 3(1)( c ) of the Act: ‘Where an apparently neutral provision would put a person referred to in any paragraph of scion 3(2) at a particular disadvantage compared with other persons, i.e those persons not suffering a disability requiring the assistance of a guide dog.’ The Adjudicator found that the ‘apparently neutral provision ‘did in fact put the Complainant at a particular disadvantage compared with other persons i.e those not suffering a disability requiring the assistance of a guide dog. The WRC Adjudicator found the determination of the Respondent to stand by their decision to impose a charge that was not reasonable and demonstrated their failure to do all that was reasonable to accommodate the needs of the person with a disability under Section 4(2) of the Act. Taking into account the Von Colson principles that sanctions must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive, the WRC Adjudicator awarded €10,000 as compensation to the Complainant for the effects of the discrimination suffered. She also ordered that the Respondent offer an apology to the Complainant and to update its policies and procedures to make specific provisions for people with disabilities, including blind customer who require the carriage of a guide dog. Takeaway for Employers: This decision serves as an important reminder to employers and service providers that neutral or blanket clauses that ‘apply to everyone’ can still amount to discrimination if their impact may fall more harshly on people with disabilities. The same principles apply under the Employment Equality Act for employees. Employers should ensure their contractual clauses are being reviewed through an equality lens. A Clause that is lawful in general may require certain exceptions to comply with disability discrimination law. Employers must consider making specific provisions for persons with disabilities. Where a disability is brought to the attention of employers or service providers, they must pause and consider whether an exception or modification is needed in order to be compliant with the Equal Status Acts/ Employment Equality Acts. Employers and service providers relying on rigid policies without considering reasonable accommodations are opening themselves up to potential liability. Link: https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2026/january/adj-00054235.html Authors- Abigail Ansell and Anne O’Connell  31st January 2026 AOC Solicitors 19-22 Baggot Street Lower Dublin 2 www.aocsolicitors.ie