Anne O'Connell Solicitors > Dublin, Ireland > Firm Profile

Anne O'Connell Solicitors > Firm Profile

Anne O’Connell Solicitors, also known as AOC Solicitors, is a leading and award-winning Irish specialist employment law firm. Established in 2017 by principal, Anne O’Connell, the firm was ranked by The Legal 500 as a ‘Leading Employment Law Firm’ in Ireland in its first year and has been elevated in ranking each year.

The firm offers a full suite of employment law services including advice and representation in respect of all contentious and non-contentious employment related issues, providing a strategic approach to employment law issues focusing on advising clients on the best solution to achieve their objectives while meeting their commercial needs and business requirements. The team is fully focused on what its clients want to achieve.

The firm advises large multi-national companies, semi-state companies, small and start-up businesses. It also advises individual high-level employees facing employment law disputes, particularly executives and directors.

The firm strongly believes in being an accessible and a dependable resource for its clients. AOC Solicitors places a high value on being available 24/7 to avoid claims and therefore offers employer clients an Employment Law Hotline to encourage such clients to contact the firm with issues as they arise. AOC Solicitors prides itself on keeping its clients abreast of all employment law updates, producing a monthly e-Newsletter with the latest legislative amendments, superior court, and relevant WRC/Labour Court decisions.

Anne was honoured to receive the Lawyer ‘Monthly Women in Law 2020 Award for Employment Law’ in Ireland for the second year running. Anne acquired in-depth experience from every angle in employment law through the various firms in which she has practised, and this has given her a high-calibre strategic and practical approach to employment law issues.

Anne is an active member of the Law Society Employment Law Committee and the Employment Law Section of the International Bar Association. Anne lectures and tutors for the Law Society and also speaks extensively at HR and legal conferences on employment law issues. Over the past two decades Anne has built up a well-earned reputation as being a stand-out leader in the field of employment law in Ireland.

Drawing on extensive and dedicated experience in the employment law sphere, the team is well placed and known for representing clients with high levels of quality and passion, proving to be a truly invaluable asset to any client. Ultimately, the success of Anne and the team is down to their stand-out ability to offer clear, up-to-date advice and concise guidance in employment law issues together with their amazing work ethics with results in unrivalled quick turnaround times. The difference between AOC Solicitors and other employment law firms is that the entire team love what they do, becoming invested in clients’ employment law issues which results in an excellent service provided to all their clients.

Spotlights

Anne O’Connell Solicitors

Anne O’Connell Solicitors (AOC Solicitors) is a leading and award-winning Irish specialist Employment Law firm which was established in 2017 by our Principal, Anne O’Connell.

As a boutique but dynamic law firm, our mission is to deliver innovative and effective legal solutions, tailored to each client’s unique circumstances, while maintaining the highest standards of service and professionalism. We provide a strategic approach to the maze that is employment law.

The Firm offers a full suite of Employment Law services including advice and representation in respect of all contentious and non-contentious employment related issues. AOC Solicitors is renowned for providing its clients with a strategic approach on Employment Law issues, advising clients on the best solution to achieve their objectives while meeting their commercial needs and business requirements.

AOC Solicitors is the solutions team for any business addressing any employment law issue. The Firm advises large multi-national companies, semi-state companies, small and start-up businesses. It also advises individual high-level employees facing employment law disputes, particularly executives and directors.

We believe in being an accessible and a dependable resource for our clients. AOC Solicitors places a high value on being available 24/7 to avoid claims and therefore we offer employer clients an Employment Law Hotline to assist such clients as and when issues arise. AOC Solicitors prides itself on keeping its clients abreast of all Employment Law updates, producing a monthly e-Newsletter with practical articles on important WRC/Labour Court and superior court decisions and any relevant legislative developments.

Our Firm is frequently recognised as a leader in our field by third parties who review the industry. In 2024, our Firm was also honoured to have been chosen by Global Law Experts (GLE) as the winner in the category of Labour & Employment Law Firm of the Year in Ireland – 2024 and 2025. We have been named Employment Law Firm of the Year at the Irish Law Awards in 2019 and again in 2021. At the 2023 Irish Law Awards, we were delighted to win the award for Excellence and Innovation in Client Services – Dublin and we were shortlisted as finalists for the Employment Law Firm of the Year. In the 2024 Irish Law Awards, the Firm was again a finalist in the categories of Law Firm of the Year; Employment Law Firm of the Year; and Excellence and Innovation in Client Service and our Principal, Anne O’Connell was the overall winner of the Sole Principal of the Year award – a highly prestigious recognition.

Our Principal, Anne is an active member of the Law Society Employment Law Committee and the Employment Law Section of the International Bar Association. Anne lectures and tutors for the Law Society and she speaks extensively at HR and Legal Conferences on employment law issues. Anne is a regular contributor on Employment Law issues in the media in Ireland and, in the last 12 months, has interviewed on several occasions by the Sunday Times, the Irish Times and RTÉ radio in relation to topical news items involving employment law issues.  Over the past two decades, Anne has built up a well-earned reputation as being a stand-out leader in the field of employment law in Ireland and has been honoured to receive many awards and is ranked as a Leading Individual in Employment Law in Ireland by Legal 500.

To ensure the ongoing delivery of excellence and responsiveness in client service, we have continued to expand and develop our team. Our team currently includes two Senior Associates – Laura Killelea and Jenny Wakely,  a Solicitor – Ethna Dillon, two trainee Solicitors – Tara Kelly and Jane Holian, a Legal Intern – Lia Berker and our Practice Manager – Aisling Nolan. Laura and Jenny also lecture and tutor for the Law Society and Laura is a committee member of the Employment Law Association of Ireland (“ELAI”).

We are genuinely passionate about what we do and what we can achieve for our clients which results in a great relationship with our clients and an excellent service.

Press Releases

WRC Examines First Case Under Sick Leave Act 2022

15th February 2024 Karolina Leszczynska v Musgrave Operating Partners Ireland ADJ-00044889 concerned a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) under the Sick Leave Act 2022 (“the Act”).

WRC Awards €8,000 for Penalisation of a Whistleblower

15th February 2024 In Bruno Seigle – Murandi v Roche Products (Ireland) Limited ADJ 00034384 the Complainant lodged a claim with the Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) pursuant to Schedule 2 of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014,

Worker Reinstated after WRC Finds that Eir Discriminated against Him on Grounds of Age

15th February 2024 In Thomas Doolin v Eir Business Eircom Limited ADJ-00045261 the Complainant, Mr Doolin, brought a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission (the “WRC”) under the Employment Equality Acts claiming that he was discriminated against on the grounds of age.

Update – Sick Leave Act 2022

15th February 2024 The provisions of the Sick Leave Act (“the Act”) commenced on 1^st January 2023 and provides that an employee shall be entitled,

Update – Statutory Guidance on the Protected Disclosures Acts 2014-2022

15th February 2024 On 20^th November 2023, the Minister for Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery & Reform published new Statutory Guidance for public bodies on the Protected Disclosures Act 2014,

Update – Paid Domestic Violence Leave

15th February 2024 On 27^th November 2023, paid domestic violence leave came into effect in Ireland. The leave is provided for by the new section 13AA in the Parental Leave Acts 1998 – 2003, inserted by the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 2023.

Maximum Compensation Awarded against An Post in Sexual Harassment Claim

15th February 2024 In Catherine Kelly v An Post ADJ-00040021 the Complainant lodged a complaint with the Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) under the Employment Equality Acts (the “Acts”) claiming that she was sexually harassed by a colleague and that the Respondent failed to deal with it appropriately.

Massage Therapist Awarded Maximum Compensation for “Egregious” Penalisation Following Protected Disclosure to her Employer

15th February 2024 In A Worker v A Massage Therapy Business ADJ00043225 the Complainant lodged a number of complaints with the Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”), including a penalisation complaint pursuant to the Protected Disclosures Act 2014.

Lidl Ireland Unfairly Dismissed Employee Due to “excessive sick leave”

15th February 2024 Buinenko v Lidl Ireland Gmbh Lidl Head Office ADJ-00033871, concerned a complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977-2015.

Investigation “Flawless” but Appeal Process and Lack of Medical Assessment Leads to Unfair Dismissal Finding

15th February 2024 A Verger v A place of worship/heritage site ADJ-00027984 concerned an unfair dismissal case before the Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2015 (the “Acts”).

Former Manager Awarded €40,000 in Successful Constructive Dismissal Claim

15th February 2024 In Caroline McGarry v JTI (Ireland) Ltd ADJ-00041399, the Complainant, Ms McGarry, brought a claim to the Workplace Relations Commission (the “WRC”) that she was constructively dismissed from her employment in the Respondent tobacco company.

Employer Falls Foul of TUPE Regulations in WRC. Tony Breslin v Trinity Motors Wicklow Limited…

15th February 2024 Tony Breslin v Trinity Motors Wicklow Limited ADJ-00033852 concerned several complaints to the Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) under the European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003 (“TUPE Regulations”).

Update – Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023

25th July 2023 The Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023 (the “Act”) was signed into law by the President on 4^th April 2023.

WRC Applies High Bar In Rejecting a Constructive Dismissal Claim

28th February 2022 WRC Adjudicator emphasises the high bar that must be met by a Complainant in a constructive dismissal claim. He details the case law and applied both tests in his decision, finding that the evidence did not illustrate unreasonableness required on the part of the employer nor did it illustrate a breach of contract.

Labour Court Finds Redundancy To Be An Unfair Dismissal Decision As No Meaningful Effort To Consider Alternative Options

28th February 2022 This was an appeal by the Respondent, Cuan Tamhnaigh Teoranta, to the Labour Court of a Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) decision in which the Adjudication Officer found that the Complainant, Mr Declan McShane, had been unfairly dismissed from his employment with the Respondent. The Adjudication Officer awarded the Complainant €12,000 in compensation.

Courier Deemed To Be An Employee And Successful In Unfair Dismissal Claim But Misses Out On Substantial Award For Failing To Mitigate His Loss

23rd February 2022 In the case of John Read v. Speedking Couriers Ltd t/a Fastway, the Complainant had his contract terminated with one week’s notice and without the application of any procedure whatsoever by the Respondent Company.  The Complainant brought a claim for Unfair Dismissal which was not upheld at the WRC but the Complainant was not in attendance due to an administrative error. Subsequently, the Complainant appealed the WRC decision to the Labour Court.

High Court Injunction Seeking to Dismiss Employee’s Personal Injury Claim Refused Regardless of Her Having Signed A Waiver Agreement

23rd February 2022 In the High Court case of Philomena Hennessy (the “Plaintiff”) v. Ladbrooks Payments (Ireland) Ltd and Ladbrooks (Ireland) (the “Defendants”, Ms Justice Bolger refused to grant a High Court Injunction seeking to dismiss the Plaintiff’s personal injury case regardless of the fact that she had signed a Waiver Agreement.

Mandatory Retirement Age Held Discriminatory on Age & Gender Grounds – One year’s pay awarded

23rd February 2022 In its recent decision in the case of Doreen Nolan v Alsaa, ADJ-00029859 on the issue of mandatory retirement ages, the WRC awarded a female employee one year’s pay as compensation for discrimination on the grounds of both age and gender.

WRC Limited Award For Unfair Dismissal Due to Employee’s Decision Not to Properly Mitigate Loss

22nd February 2022 In the recent decision of Martin Gillen v. Derek Daly Construction Ltd ADJ-00029984 the Complainant was held to have been unfairly dismissed as the Respondent failed to follow any procedures in respect of his dismissal, which involved a serious instance of gross misconduct by the Complainant. As the Complainant limited the amount he worked, after his dismissal, so he qualified for social welfare, the Adjudicator deemed that any award is limited to the amount as if he had no financial loss i.e. 4 weeks remuneration.

The Transitional Protocol: Good Practice Guidance for Continuing to Prevent the Spread of COVID-19 at Work

31st January 2022 On 31 January 2022 the Department for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, published The Transitional Protocol: Good Practice Guidance for Continuing to Prevent the Spread of COVID-19 (“The Protocol”), an update to the Work Safely Protocol last published 14 January 2022.

Award of Two Years’ Compensation For Unfair Dismissal Reduced by 40% Due To Employee’s Contribution

28th January 2022 In the recent decision of Robert Libera v Regeneron Ireland DAC, ADJ-0023417, the WRC determined that although the Complainant had been unfairly dismissed for gross misconduct, he had contributed to his dismissal and therefore reduced the award by 40%.

Substantial Award by WRC Highlights Requirement For Redundancy Consultation Even In Circumstances Involving Closure

28th January 2022 Facts: This was an unfair dismissal case in which the Complainant, Mr Ray Walsh, claimed that his dismissal by the Respondent, Econocom Digital Limited, was a sham redundancy and fair procedures were not followed.

WRC Finds Withholding of Ex-Gratia Payment, As Employee Refused to Sign Agreement, Amounted to Penalisation

27th January 2022 In the recent decision of Robert Farrell v Modus Link Kildare Unlimited Company, ADJ-00032100, the WRC determined that the withholding by the Respondent of an ex-gratia payment because of the Complainant’s ongoing personal injuries claim against the Respondent constituted penalisation under section 27 of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 (the ‘Act’).

Heads of Bill Published for Right to Request Remote Working Bill 2021

26th January 2022 The Covid-19 Pandemic has seen remote working become a staple of the Irish workplace and with it, the Government has reiterated its commitment to its Remote Working Strategy. On 25^th January 2022, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment published the eagerly anticipated draft Scheme of the Right to Request Remote Working Bill 2021 (the “Bill”), which it hopes to pass into law by summer 2022.  The Bill provides employees with a right to request remote working but not a right to remote working per se, which has attracted some criticism.  The Government has been criticised for the grounds of refusal being too wide and not enshrining a right to remote working rather than a right to request remote working into law.

Dismissal Held To Be Disproportionate Sanction, Yet Award Reduced As Employee Contributed To His Dismissal

26th January 2022 Facts: The Complainant was appointed as a cargo surveyor with the Respondent on 1^st April 2004 and was promoted to Operations Manager in 2006. He was second in command to the General Manager, and he was not allowed take holidays when the General Manager was absent. However, arrangements had been previously put in place to allow the General Manager and the Complainant to be out of the office at the same time.

Redundancy Payments (Amendment) Bill 2022

26th January 2022 The Redundancy Payments (Amendment) Bill 2022 (“the Bill”) was published on the 21^st January 2022. The proposed legislation will amend the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 to provide for payments from the Department of Social Protection to employees who were laid off during the Covid-19 emergency period, beginning on 13 March 2020 and ending on 30 September 2021.

Employee Re-instated by WRC as Redundancy Process Deemed a Sham

23rd December 2021 In the recent WRC decision of Colin Dominic Kearns v Ata Tools, ADJ-00030876, Adjudication Officer Brian Dalton determined that although there was a genuine redundancy situation, the Respondent used the process to target the Complainant and therefore it was deemed to be an unfair dismissal.

Reminder Re Gender Pay Gap Information Act 2021

22nd December 2021 As noted in our newsletter earlier this year, the Gender Pay Gap Information Act 2021 (the “Act”) was finally signed into law on the 13^th July 2021. The Act amends the Employment Equality Act 1998 and will require regulations compelling certain employers to publish information relating to the remuneration of their employees by reference to their gender. While it had been expected that the regulations (clarifying the specific reporting obligations) would be published before the end of 2021, as yet, there is no update in relation to this. However, the reporting process is expected to begin from 2022 onwards.

Issues And Payments To Be Aware Of Re Latest Restrictions

22nd December 2021 On 17^th December 2021, the latest restrictions were introduced which will have an adverse impact on the income for a number of businesses and their employees. Employers have had to lay off employees already and others are likely going to have to make layoffs in January. In anticipation of this, the Government announced significant expansion of supports to the businesses on 21^st December 2021 and has also reopened the Pandemic Unemployment Payment (PUP) for new applicants for employees who have either lost their jobs or put on lay-off due to the recent restrictions. The Government has confirmed that the Employment Wage Subsidy Scheme (EWSS) is now open for such businesses to support payment of employees’ salaries and has relaxed some of the previous stricter requirements. In doing this the Government has sought businesses to keep their employees employed and not to lay them off.

Reeling In The Year 2021

22nd December 2021 It is appropriate at this time of the year to look back at some of the developments and the important cases that have shaped the landscape of employment law in Ireland in 2021.

HR’s Control of the Process Removed Its Independence – Labour Court Increases WRC Award by over €10,000

21st December 2021 In the recent decision of the Labour Court in the case of Frederick Hobson v Praxis Care, UDD2172 the Labour Court was so critical of the Respondent not subjecting the other employee involved in the incident to investigation or disciplinary process and its failure to facilitate an independent process, that it increased the award from €20,000 to €31,868.37.

Supreme Court Confirms Broad Scope of the Protected Disclosures Act & Finds the Code of Practice Is Wrong

7th December 2021 On 1^st December 2021, the Supreme Court in Baranya v. Rosderra Meats found in favour of the Appellant and directed the case back to the Labour Court. The Supreme Court held that the Code of Practice on Protected Disclosures misstates the law and does not accurately reflect the terms of what the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 actually says. It went on to find that the scope of the 2014 Act includes breaches of statutory employment law obligations and grievances regarding an employee’s health. However, it acknowledged that this did not seem to be the intention of the Oireachtas.   

WRC Increases Burden On Employers When Upholding Constructive Dismissal Claim

2nd December 2021 In the recent decision of the Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) of Jennifer Healy v De Paul, ADJ00026357 the WRC found in favour of the Complainant’s constructive unfair dismissal complaint, despite the Complainant’s failure to exhaust all internal procedures available to her.

Employee who worked one month awarded €200 for lack of breaks

30th November 2021 Facts: The Complainant was employed as a photographer with the Respondent, who operates a “Santa’s Grotto Experience”, from 22^nd November 2019 to 23^rd December 2019.

Update: Sick Leave Bill 2021

23rd November 2021 The details of the highly anticipated Sick Leave Bill (“the Bill”) were recently published by the Department of Enterprise Trade and Employment. The Bill will see the introduction of mandatory employer Statutory Sick Pay scheme (“SSP Scheme”) for the first time in this jurisdiction. The Bill provides for an entitlement to a minimum period of paid sick leave for all employees in the event that they fall ill or sustain an injury which prevents them from being able to work. 

Updated Work Safely Protocol

5th November 2021 On 22 October 2021 the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Leo Varadkar TD, published an updated Work Safely Protocol. This is the fourth revision since the Protocol was first published in May 2020 and follows shortly after the third revision that was published on 17 September 2021. It is based on recent public health advice received by the Government and follows the Government’s announcement on 19 October that public health advice would continue after 22 October.

Covid-19 Pandemic Unemployment Payment Update

31st October 2021 The Covid-19 PUP closed to new applicants from 8^th July 2021. There has been gradual reduction in the PUP rates. As per the recent notification, the current rates of PUP are as below:

Labour Court Awards €75,000 For Discriminatory Dismissal For Failure Of Employer To Prove That Altered Role Was Not Viable

29th October 2021 In the recent decision of the Labour Court in the case of Kevin Roberts v United Parcel Service of Ireland Ltd, ADE/20/115, the Court overturned the decision of the WRC Adjudicator, deciding that the dismissal of Complainant was discriminatory dismissal, and he was not afforded reasonable accommodation.

Employee Awarded €25,000 For Employer’s Failure To Objectively Justify Retirement Age

29th October 2021 Facts: The Complainant, Anthony Kenny commenced employment with the Respondent, Bord Na Mona Plc, on 15^th May 1975, as a General Operative until he retired in April 2020. He thereafter requested to work beyond his retirement age. A meeting was convened in December 2019 and a correspondence declining his application was issued to him. The application was declined on the basis of (a) conditions of employment in relation to retirement age; (b) pension scheme rules; (c) custom and practice of the Respondent; and (d) employee’s entitlement to draw down a pension. This however did not refer to the Code of Practice on Longer Working nor did it provide an objective justification for the refusal.  The Complainant appealed this decision and was issued an outcome of the appeal on 15^th January 2020 confirming the above 4 headings and further added that “due regard to the health and safety requirements given the physically demanding nature of the general operative role and tasks associated with that role”.

Labour Court Finds Company’s Mandatory Retirement Age Justifiable

30th September 2021 Facts: The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent Company as a Service Engineer on 1^st September 1989.  His employment ceased due to his reaching his 65^th birthday on 21^st January 2020.   The Complainant initiated a claim against his former employer under the Employment Equality Acts 1998-2015 (the “Act”).  He claimed that he was discriminated against on the basis of age.  The WRC hearing this claim on 10^th February 2020 and the Adjudicator did not find in favour of the Complainant.   The Complainant then lodged an appeal against this finding to the Labour Court.

Labour Court Increases Complainant’s Award For Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodations For Her Disability

30th September 2021 Facts: The Complainant’s employment transferred to the Respondent by way of a transfer of undertaking in August 2018. Her previous employer had made reasonable accommodations for her due to her Achilles Tendonitis and based on the advice from Occupational Health. The Respondent would not apply the agreement made between the Complainant and her previous employer.

Labour Court Finds “Volunteer” To Be An Employee Regardless Of Her Not Receiving A Traditional Salary

30th September 2021 Facts: This was an appeal by the Respondent, Camphill Communities of Ireland, against a WRC decision that the Respondent unfairly dismissed the Complainant, Ms. Elke Williams. The WRC had awarded compensation in the amount of €40,000.

Bus Driver’s Dismissal For Using Mobile Phone While Driving Deemed Unfair & Reinstatement Ordered

30th September 2021 The WRC Adjudicator, Pat Brady, centred his decision around the Respondent’s use of CCTV footage to discipline and ultimately dismiss the Complainant and the application of the ‘zero tolerance’ policy.

Labour Court Substantially Increases Award For Sexual Harassment

30th September 2021 Facts: This was an Appeal by the Complainant, a 19 year old female barista, against a Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) decision that she should be awarded €3,500 on foot of a sexual harassment claim that resulted in her feeling stressed and anxious, certified out sick and ultimately resigning her position.

WRC Held Wages Are Not ‘Properly Payable’ During Lay-Off Period & Such Non-Payment Cannot Be A Breach of Payment of Wages Act

30th September 2021 Facts: The Complainant joined the Respondent’s engineering contracting firm on 26^th August 2019 as a mechanical estimator on an annual salary of €65000. He was laid off on 27^th March 2020 when the closure of the construction sector due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The Complainant was not brought back when certain employees were brought back to work in June 2020 and was given four weeks’ notice of redundancy.

Labour Court Finds Employee Unfairly Dismissed But Contributed 100% to His Dismissal – Zero Compensation

30th September 2021 Facts: This was an appeal by the Complainant, Mr Nicholas Folan, of a WRC decision that he had not been unfairly dismissed by the Respondent, Smurfit Kappa Ireland Ltd. The Complainant sought redress in the form of reinstatement.

Maximum Award For Mandatory Retirement As No Justification

9th September 2021 Facts: The Complainant was employed as a senior staff nurse from the 10^th May 2014 until the date of her compulsory retirement on the 28^th October 2019, by the Respondent, a nursing home in liquidation. She received remuneration of approximately €5,883 per month gross. The Complainant sought an award of compensation in respect of discrimination suffered, loss of almost a year’s work and loss of redundancy payments before the Respondent closed and went into liquidation.

Employee Held to be Unfairly Dismissed Regardless of Admitting to Alcohol Consumption Hours Before Starting Work

8th September 2021 Facts: Eduard Markovskij, the Complainant, commenced employment with Suretank Limited, the Respondent, on the 29^th of August 2007 as a welder. His average weekly net pay was €693.80. He reported for work at Depot 1 on 14^th September 2020 at 2pm. He met Manager A who sent him to Depot 2. This was not out of the ordinary for the Complainant. When the Complainant arrived at Depot 2, the manager there, Manager B, formed the view that the Complainant was unsteady, smelled of alcohol and appeared to be under the influence. Manager B contacted Manager A, who drove to Depot 2 to observe the situation for himself. He stopped in a pharmacy on the way to purchase an alcohol testing kit, but they were out of stock.

Legal Developments

WRC Looks Behind Company and Deems an Individual an Employee

17th December 2024 The WRC recently delivered decisions on a number of employment law claims brought by the Complainant in a case entitled PR Company v Hotel Resort (ADJ-00046181, ADJ-00047024, ADJ-00045524, ADJ-00047375).

WRC Finds Employer’s Sick Pay Scheme More Favourable Overall Than Statutory Sick Pay Scheme

17th December 2024  In Alan Lehane v Sean Ahern Ltd ADJ-00051505, the Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) found that an employer’s sick pay scheme was more favourable overall than entitlements provided for under the Sick Leave Act 2022 (“the Act”),

Reeling In The Year 2024

17th December 2024 It is appropriate at this time of the year to look back at some of the interesting developments and the important cases that have shaped employment law in Ireland in 2024.

Pregnant Employee who was Dismissed Awarded €136,200 in WRC

17th December 2024 Raquel Vieira Dos Santos Silva v Eteam Workforce Limited (ADJ-00051855) is a decision of the Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) in a case under the Employment Equality Acts 1998-2015 (the “Acts”).

High Court Clarifies the Scope of a De Novo Appeal to the Labour Court

17th December 2024 The High Court judgement of Ms Justice Bolger in Padraic Hanley v. PBR Restaurants Ltd t/a Fish Shack Café [2024] IEHC 662 delivered on 19^th November 2024 gives clarification to the scope of a de novo hearing before the Labour Court.

Government Publish Updated Code of Practice on Determining Employment Status

17th December 2024 Following the 2023 judgement of the Supreme Court in The Revenue Commissioners v Karshan (midlands) Ltd/ T/A Donimo’s Pizza [2023] IESC 24 the Government’s “Code of Practice on Determining Employment Status”

Twitter ordered to pay €550,000 to Former Employee

30th September 2024

In the recent high-profile case of Gary Rooney v Twitter International Unlimited Company (ADJ – 00044246)...

The recent determinations of the Labour Court in Parnells GAA Club, Parnells GAA Club LTd v Leigh Fogarty

30th September 2024 The recent determinations of the Labour Court in Parnells GAA Club, Parnells GAA Club LTd v Leigh Fogarty (Decision No’s RPD2420 & RPD2419) are noteworthy for any employer faced with a possible layoff situation.

WRC Finds Dismissal Unfair as Re-Deployment Request Not Properly Considered, even for Trial Period

27th September 2024

In a recent decision of the Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) in Gareth Elliot v Legs Eleven Limited...

Wrc Finds Complainant Never Was An Employee Regardless Of Having Paid Employee Taxes For 11 Years

27th September 2024

In A Solicitor v A Construction Consultancy Business (ADJ-00046911), the Complainant brought a complaint to the...

Gender Pay Gap Reporting Update

20th September 2024

As highlighted in our previous article in June 2022 entitled “Employers to Begin Mandatory Reporting of Gender Pay Gap...

WRC Holds Fiddler To Be An Employee

2nd September 2024

In Matthew McGranaghan v. MEPC Music Ltd (ADJ-00037668), the Complainant brought a number of complaints...

Supreme Court Rules High Court Erred in Re-engaging School Principal in a Manner that Meant He was Effectively Reinstated

30th August 2024

Supreme Court Rules High Court Erred in Re-engaging School Principal in a Manner that Meant He was Effectively Reinstated...

WRC Orders Re-engagement of Employee Dismissed Due to Discriminatory Workplace Policy on Absence

29th August 2024

In Courtney Carter v Tesco Ireland Limited (ADJ-00049889), the Complainant brought a complaint to the Workplace...

WRC Considers Employer Obligations Following Request For Remote Working

28th August 2024

In a recent decision of the Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) in Alina Karabko v Tiktok Technology...

Employers should be cautious of ‘Heat of the Moment’ Resignations

27th August 2024

In a recent decision of the Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) in Darryl Scales v Ennistymon Parish...

Employee Dismissed on Probation Awarded €15,000 for Discriminatory Dismissal and Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation

25th August 2024

In the case of Abdulah Aljaber v Dawn Meats Group Unlimited Company (ADJ-00036503), the Complainant brought...

Parent’s Leave Update August 2024

22nd August 2024

An increase in the amount of Parent’s Leave was expected this year following Budget 2024.

Teacher Penalised by Changes to Timetable following the Making of a Protected Disclosure

29th July 2024

In Jennifer Clancy v The Manager, Templeogue College (ADJ-00042323) the Complainant lodged a number...

---

In Jennifer Clancy v The Manager, Templeogue College (ADJ-00042323) the Complainant lodged a number of claims with the Workplace Relations Commission (”WRC”), including a complaint under the Protected Disclosures Act, 2014 (“the Act”) which were heard before Adjudication Officer, Breiffni O’Neill. Facts: The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent in 2018 as a part-time teacher in the Spanish Department. Due to her family circumstances, she had agreed with the Principal at the time that she would receive mostly morning classes, and that if she was required to work afternoons, it would be agreed in advance and she would be given ample notice so that she could arrange childcare. The Complainant worked no more than one afternoon a week for at least three years, and she was given sufficient notice in advance. It was common practice within the school that teachers would continue to teach the same cohort of students through the school years in order to ensure continuity for both teachers and students. On 7^th February 2022 the Complainant signed a collective grievance, along with 10 other colleagues.  This grievance included concerns around dignity in the workplace, data protection, health and safety and timetable issues, among other matters.  It was accepted by the Respondent that the grievance constituted a protected disclosure. The Complainant claimed that the Principal’s behaviour towards her changed following the making of this protected disclosure, and a number of issues arose between them. Prior to the school year 2022 to 2023, the Complainant received a timetable consisting solely of afternoon classes. This was despite her colleagues in the Spanish Department being available to teach afternoon classes which, if allocated to them, would have allowed her to teach the morning classes. This seemed to be the sensible thing to do as it would also allow her to continue to teach the cohort of students she had previously taught as was standard practice within the school.  The Complainant attempted to raise this with the Principal immediately, but she was ”unavailable”.  On a fourth attempt, she managed to speak to the Principal, who said that the hours could not be changed and that her requirement to work morning hours “could not always be accommodated”.  Ultimately the Complainant contacted her ASTI representative as she felt that the Principal’s tone had changed and that she was being approached more aggressively. Two days later, the Principal arranged a meeting to speak with the Complainant who attended on 26^th August 2022, with her trade union representative. However, the Principal was aggressive and demanded an explanation for the Complainant’s absence at an afternoon session of the Haddington Road staff meeting and did not address the matter of the timetable at all.   The Complainant had no knowledge that this was to be discussed at the meeting and had presumed that it was to discuss the timetable. The Principal was so irate at this meeting that she was asked to calm down a number of times and ultimately the Complainant had to suspend the meeting. On 29^th August 2022, the Complainant’s trade union representative wrote to the Principal outlining that the Complainant would have no choice but to resign if her hours were not changed, and notified the Respondent that she was invoking the ASTI grievance procedure. During this time, the Complainant suffered a flare up in her auto immune condition due to stress, and was certified unfit to work until 26^th September.  She received a letter invoking the disciplinary procedure against her on 29^th August which lacked detail as to the allegations against her and failed to comply with Department of Education Circular 0049/2018. The Complainant queried this matter with the Principal, but was informed that the letter  “crossed” with the medical certificate and answered no further. The grievance procedure commenced in early September and despite it being an issue raised in her grievance letter, the Principal refused to deal with the issue around the disciplinary letter being sent to her.  Regarding the timetabling difficulties, the Principal did offer a solution to this, but did not address issues relating to the treatment of the Complainant. The Principal’s suggestion was not satisfactory to the Complainant, and the Complainant made a counter proposal which went unanswered. The grievance procedure stipulated tight deadlines for each stage and due to the lack of response to her proposals, she then indicated her intention to move to stage 2. The Respondent did not engage appropriately with stage 2 within the timeframe and therefore stage 3 was instigated. This involved the Complainant being invited to a meeting before the Board of Management accompanied by a colleague. At this meeting, contrary to the terms of the grievance policy, the Principal was in attendance, which the Complainant contended was intimidating for her.  The Complainant requested the Principal and Deputy Principal to recuse themselves as the policy stated that their involvement should only be in writing at this stage.  The recusal request was refused, and the meeting proceeded noting the Complainant’s objection. The Complainant had provided significant written submissions prior to the meeting with initially the Board refused to address as they were “too big”. However, upon the request of another board member, they were eventually provided to members of the Board. After a break where the Principal, Deputy Principal and JMB representative left the room, they returned and the Principal proceeded to make a submission to the Board of Management. The Complainant was not afforded the right to respond to the submission made. At the end of this stage, mediation was recommended to the Complainant. Despite the Complainant saying that she would need to consider this, she received a letter stating that she had agreed to it. Refuting this suggestion, she requested to move to stage 4 of the grievance procedure. A damaging report was prepared by the Board of Management (written by the Principal) which was then shared with the Stage 4 panel despite the Complainant’s solicitor’s objections to same. During Stage 4 of the process, the Principal made new claims that the Complainant had worked afternoons previously and provided evidence from VSware which the Complainant claimed was altered information. The Stage 4 Tribunal did not uphold the Complainant’s grievances and therefore she lodged her complaint with the WRC. Decision: It was agreed by the Respondent that the Complainant had made a protected disclosure within the meaning of the Act. Therefore, the Adjudicator was required to determine whether the Complainant was penalised for doing so having regard to the legislation and established tests. Section 12(1) of the Act which sets out as follows: “An employer shall not penalise or threaten penalisation against an employee, or cause or permit any other person to penalise or threaten penalisation against an employee, for having made a protected disclosure.” Section 3 provides examples of what amounts to “penalisation” within the meaning of the Act. The Complainant alleged that she was subjected to penalisation by the Principal, the Board of Management, and members of the Tribunal at various stages of the grievance process. The Adjudicator considered each stage separately and found as follows: Stage 1 of the grievance process – there was no penalisation as the Principal did attempt to reach a compromise with the Complainant, and the fact that the Complainant rejected the compromise did not amount to penalisation. Stage 3 of the grievance process – there was no penalisation by the Board in handling this stage of the process because they sought to resolve matters through mediation, even though the manner in which they did so was disingenuous. Stage 4 of the grievance process – there was no penalisation as the tribunal members were independently appointed by the Complainant’s union and the Respondent’s managerial body. He then considered the Complainant’s claims regarding:

• • the change of hours
  • change of classes
  • the Principal shouting at the Complainant during the meeting of 26^th August
  • the threat of disciplinary action

Considering each of these matters, he found as follows:

• • The change of hours

The Respondent disregarded the working arrangement which had been in place for a number of years when it attempted to change the Complainant’s timetable requiring her to work afternoons in the school year following the making of a protected disclosure by the Complainant.  This constituted penalisation under section 3(1)(c).

• • The change of classes

It was well established in the school that teachers continued with their students and the change to senior cycle students who the Complainant had never taught before constituted penalisation under section 3(1)(f).

• • The Principal shouting at the Complainant during the meeting of 26^th August

The Principal shouting at the Complainant at a meeting to discuss the altered timetable on the 26^th August 2022, causing her to feel intimidated by the Principal constituted penalisation under section 3(1)(e).

• • The threat of disciplinary action

The Respondent sought to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the Complainant causing damage to her reputation which constituted penalisation contrary to section 3(1)(m). Once it was established that a protected disclosure was made, and that penalisation occurred, it was for the Adjudicator to determine whether the penalisation occurred because of the protected disclosure that was made. The Adjudicator was satisfied that the Complainant successfully established a connection between the protected disclosure and penalisation and met the “but for” test as set out in Anna Monaghan and Aidan & Henrietta McGrath Partnership PDD162, notwithstanding that there was no evidence that the other signatories on the collective grievance had been penalised. Turning to the award, the Complainant’s representative argued that as the Act provides for an employer may be required to pay “compensation of such amount (if any) as is just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances, but not exceeding 260 weeks renumeration”, consideration should be given to the significant legal costs incurred by the Complainant. However, the Adjudicator agreed with the Respondent’s legal representative that as a matter of public policy, legal fees should not be considered when determining the appropriate award. The Adjudicator also agreed with the Respondent’s legal representative that any stress or injury suffered by the Complainant should also be disregarded as these matters should have been the subject of a Personal Injury claim instead, as per Justice O’Donnell in Dillon v Irish Life Assurance plc IEHC 203. The Adjudicator awarded the Complainant compensation amounting to 15 months’ salary, having given careful consideration to the intention of the Act to provide a high level of protection to those who are penalised as a result of making a protected disclosure, and the need for the award to be effective and dissuasive. The Adjudicator also gave consideration to the requirement set out in Von Colson for awards to be proportionate. He noted that the Complainant did not adduce evidence regarding financial loss, and she did not claim reputational damage arising from the penalisation. Takeaway for Employers: The Protected Disclosures legislation gives extensive protections to employees who “blow the whistle”, and awards are intended to be dissuasive. It is vital for employers to ensure that they investigate protected disclosures appropriately, and that they ensure that employees are not subjected to treatment which may amount to penalisation under the Act. Link  - ADJ-00042323 - Workplace Relations Commission

---

Authors – Nicola MacCarthy and Jenny Wakely

Employee’s Dismissal Found Disproportionate, but Award Reduced – Employee Did Not Avail of Appeal Process

26th July 2024

In the case of Catherine Crabbe v Grosvenor Cleaning Services Limited t/a Grosvenor Services (ADJ-00049787)...

WRC Held Complainant Was Not an Employee and It Had No Jurisdiction to Hear Unfair Dismissal Claim

25th July 2024

In Bertrand Lacour v Ubiqube (Ireland) Limited (ADJ-00029227) the Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”)...

WRC Finds that Sexual Questioning Did Not Amount to Sexual Harassment or Discrimination

25th July 2024

In Georgina O’Driscoll v Daffodil Care Services Unlimited Company (ADJ-00040760) the Complainant...

WRC Finds No Disability As Not Clearly Stated in the Medical Report

25th July 2024

In John-Paul Barbour-Hyland v Daa Plc Dublin Airport Authority (ADJ-00048082), the Complainant brought...

WRC Awards Four Weeks’ Pay For Gaps in Employment Contract

24th July 2024

In a recent decision of the Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) in Linda Moran v English By Design Limited..

Employer Deemed Unreasonable Not Allowing Employee Withdraw Her Resignation

24th July 2024

Patricia Groarke v Pat The Baker (ADJ-00048826) is a decision of the Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”)...

Labour Court Finds that Dismissal Not Due to Protected Disclosure

20th July 2024

Facts: Aisling Murphy (the “Complainant”) was a pharmacist who was employed by the Madigan’s Pharmacy Kilkenny...

Supreme Court Clarifies Law on Mandatory Retirement Ages

31st May 2024

Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has this month issued an important Judgement in the case of Seamus...

WRC Orders Maximum Award to University Professor for Unfair Dismissal

28th May 2024

In Wim Naude v University College Cork (ADJ-00042625), the Complainant brought a...

Probationary Periods must be Proportionate to the Length of a Fixed Term Contract

28th May 2024

Facts: In the WRC case of Padraic O’Toole v. Department of Agriculture, Food & The Marine...

Probationary Periods must be Proportionate to the Length of a Fixed Term Contract In An Assistant Lecturer v An Institute of Technology (ADJ-00050085) the Workplace Relations Commission (the WRC”) examined the issue of proportionality in probationary periods. The Complainant was employed by the Respondent institute as a part-time assistant lecturer on a 24-month fixed term contract of employment. His probation period was 12 months long. He brought complaints to the WRC under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 (the “1994 Act”) and the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act, 2003 (the “2003 Act”) challenging the length of the probation period.. Decision: The Adjudicator, Mr. David James Murphy, considered section 6D of the 1994 Act, which states: “ (1) Subject to this section, where an employee has entered into a contract of employment with an employer which provides for a probationary period, such period shall not exceed 6 months. (2) The probationary period of a public servant shall not exceed 12 months.” Both parties agreed that the Complainant is a public servant and that a 12 month probation period was in compliance with this Act. The Complainant advanced two arguments under the 2003 Act. The first was that his probation clause constitutes less favourable treatment when compared with permanent staff. The second was that it was disproportionate to the overall length of the contract. The Adjudicator considered that all employment contracts issued by the Respondent provide for a probationary period of 12 months and therefore did not accept that the Complainant established that he had been treated less favourably than a comparable permanent employee. The Adjudicator then considered whether the probationary period was proportionate. The Adjudicator referred to the amendment that was made recently to the 2003 Act to incorporate Directive (EU) 2019/1152 on transparent and predictable working conditions. Section 9A of the 2003 Act now states as follows: “9A. (1) Notwithstanding section 6D of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 , where a fixed-term employee has entered into a fixed-term contract with an employer which provides for a probationary period, the length of such probationary period shall be proportionate to the expected duration of the fixed-term contract and the nature of the work. (2) Where an employer proposes to renew a fixed-term contract for the same functions and tasks, the fixed-term contract shall not be subject to a new probationary period. (3) A word or expression that is used in this section that is also used in Directive (EU) 2019/1152 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 201910 on transparent and predictable working conditions in the European Union has, unless the contrary intention appears, the same meaning in this section that it has in that Directive.” The Adjudicator accepted that a probationary period of 12 months in a 24 month contract is high, however this does not necessarily make it disproportionate, but it put the onus on the Respondent to show how it is not. The Respondent’s explanation to the WRC as to how the probationary period was set was that it was decided by a sectoral agreement. The Respondent did not provide justification for the probation period. The Adjudicator commented that there was nothing related to the Complainant’s role that required such a long period of probation. The Adjudicator noted that the Respondent did not dispute the Complainant’s evidence that he had never even received a performance review with his manager and that there was no structured probation policy in operation where an employee is assessed against stated goals. The Adjudicator held that the probationary period of 12 months was not grounded in any process to monitor performance or provide feedback, but rather appeared to be just a threat of sudden dismissal. In those circumstances, the Adjudicator held that the probationary period was disproportionate and awarded the Complainant €1,000 in compensation. He also directed that the Complainant’s probationary period be reduced to six months from the commencement of his employment. Takeaway for Employers: This decision is a reminder to employers about the changes to probationary periods following the implementation of Ireland’s obligations under EU Directive 2019/1152 on transparent and predictable working conditions. In the private sector, a probationary period should not exceed six months save where there is an exceptional basis for it to be longer and in any case, it may not exceed 12 months. Furthermore, extensions to probationary periods can only be made if they are in the “interests of the employee”. Both the legislation and this decision affirm that in the public sector, probationary periods may be longer (up to 12 months). However, the onus is on the public sector employer to demonstrate that the length of the probationary period is not disproportionate. Employers should note that the low award in this case should be read in the context that the Employee had specifically confirmed he did not want any compensation. Link - https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2024/april/adj-00050085.html

---

Authors – Jane Holian and Laura Killelea

Labour Court Upholds WRC Finding that Dismissal of Aer Lingus Customer Services Agent for Gross Misconduct was Fair

28th May 2024

The Labour Court in Aer Lingus Limited v Virginia Linehan (UDD2418) has upheld the Workplace...

Labour Court Upholds Decision to Reinstate Employee Who Sought to Retract Resignation Tendered in “Special Circumstances”

28th May 2024

The Labour Court (the “Court”) has recently issued its decision in Saint John of God Community Services...

WRC Find Selection Process Tainted with Discrimination

27th May 2024

In the recent case A Complainant v A Media Company (ADJ-00043525) the Complainant alleged she...

This WRC Decision Should Raise Concerns For Companies Engaging Contractors

27th May 2024

The Complainant in Lauren McBride v. FSR Atlantic Ltd t/a ADHD Now (ADJ-00049238) alleged several...

Labour Court Clarifies When “On-Call” Is Not Considered Working Time for the Purposes of Public Holiday Entitlements

24th May 2024

In the Labour Court case Mater Misericordiae University Hospital v Adrian Stefan (DWT2415)...

€25k Awarded for Penalisation due to a Protected Disclosure but It May be Challenged As Being Out of Time

18th May 2024

Facts: In the WRC case of Padraic O’Toole v. Department of Agriculture, Food & The Marine...

WRC Awards €8,000 for Penalisation of a Whistleblower

19th March 2024

WRC Awards €8,000 for Penalisation of a Whistleblower. In Bruno Seigle – Murandi v Roche...

Investigation “Flawless” but Appeal Process and Lack of Medical Assessment Leads to Unfair Dismissal Finding

19th March 2024

A Verger v A place of worship/heritage site ADJ-00027984 concerned an unfair dismissal case ...

Former Manager Awarded €40,000 in Successful Constructive Dismissal Claim

19th March 2024

Former Manager Awarded €40,000 in Successful Constructive Dismissal Claim. In Caroline McGarry v JTI...

Employer Falls Foul of TUPE Regulations in WRC

19th March 2024

Employer Falls Foul of TUPE Regulations in WRC. Tony Breslin v Trinity Motors Wicklow Limited...

What to Look Out for in 2024

29th February 2024

In our first newsletter of 2024, we at Anne O’Connell Solicitors would like to highlight some key employment...

Recent WRC Decisions On Retirement Age

29th February 2024

A series of recent WRC cases on the issue of retirement age demonstrate the importance of forward...

Garda Commissioner Unsuccessful in Attempt to Dismiss Garda who had Sexual Encounter with Witness

29th February 2024

A recent Court of Appeal decision in the case of Hegarty v The Commissioner of An Garda...

Employer Entitled to Terminate Complainants’ Employment for Repudiatory Acts, but Procedural Failure Renders Dismissals Unfair

29th February 2024

Facts: The Complainants in Ms Roxana Doba v AFM Facilities Limited ADJ-00043540 and Ms...

High Court Rejects Point of Law Appeal from Labour Court regarding Working Time

28th February 2024

Walsh v Kerry County Council [2023] IEHC 719 concerned a recent appeal on a point of law from...

The Twelve Bells of Wisdom for Employers at Christmas

20th December 2023

With the festive season approaching and Christmas parties firmly back on the agenda, we look at some...

Worker Reinstated after WRC Finds that Eir Discriminated against Him on Grounds of Age

19th December 2023

In Thomas Doolin v Eir Business Eircom Limited ADJ-00045261 the Complainant, Mr Doolin, brought...

Massage Therapist Awarded Maximum Compensation for “Egregious” Penalisation Following Protected Disclosure to her Employer

18th December 2023

In A Worker v A Massage Therapy Business ADJ00043225 the Complainant lodged a number...

WRC Examines First Case Under Sick Leave Act 2022

30th November 2023

Karolina Leszczynska v Musgrave Operating Partners Ireland ADJ-00044889 concerned a complaint...

Update – Sick Leave Act 2022

30th November 2023

Update - Sick Leave Act 2022. The provisions of the Sick Leave Act (“the Act”) commenced on 1st January...

Update – Statutory Guidance on the Protected Disclosures Acts 2014-2022

30th November 2023

On 20th November 2023, the Minister for Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery & Reform published new Statutory...

Update – Paid Domestic Violence Leave

30th November 2023

Update – Paid Domestic Violence Leave. On 27th November 2023, paid domestic violence leave came...

Lidl Ireland Unfairly Dismissed Employee Due to “excessive sick leave”

30th November 2023

Buinenko v Lidl Ireland Gmbh Lidl Head Office ADJ-00033871, concerned a complaint under...

Maximum Compensation Awarded against An Post in Sexual Harassment Claim

29th November 2023

Maximum Compensation Awarded against An Post in Sexual Harassment Claim. In Catherine Kelly v An Post...

Labour Court Reduces €10,000 Unfair Dismissal Award, Despite Flawed Procedure, Due to Teacher’s Own Conduct

25th October 2023 The Labour Court (the “Court”) case of Scoil Aine Naofa v Michael Hughes ADJ00025-23 concerned an appeal by both parties of a decision of the Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”).

Labour Court Finds Aer Lingus Requirement to Wear High Heels Discriminatory

25th October 2023 Aer Lingus v. Elizabeth Barry EDA2331 was an appeal to the Labour Court (the “Court”) by the Complainant against a Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) decision which found that her discrimination complaint was not well founded.

Labour Court Overturns €18,000 Penalisation Award

25th October 2023 In an article published in our October 2022 newsletter , we discussed the decision of the Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) in ADJ-00033234. 

WRC Finding of Unfair Dismissal – Employer Unable to Demonstrate that Fair Procedures were Followed

25th October 2023 Kenneth Malone v Cerlock Ltd ADJ-00041931 concerned three complaints to the Workplace Relations Commission (the “WRC”) under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977-2015, the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997, and the Terms of Employment (Information) Acts 1994-2014.

Dental Practice Manager awarded €15,000 for “Cruel” Unfair Dismissal

25th October 2023 In Zsuzsanna Budai v Acd Practice Management Ltd (Ardum Clinic) ADJ-00037391, the Complainant, Ms Budai, bought a claim to the Workplace Relations Commission (the “WRC”) that she was unfairly dismissed from her employment in the Respondent dental practice.

WRC Awards Employee €20,000 for Penalisation due to Applying for Parental Leave

22nd August 2023 Paulette Leonard v The Board of Management Farnham NS- ADJ-00033826 concerned two complaints of penalisation under the Parental Leave Act 1998 heard by the Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”).

WRC Finds Unfair Dismissal for Want of Fair Procedures

22nd August 2023 The Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) case of Paul Burke v Dungarvan Insulation Limited ADJ-00035692 involved a number of complaints under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Acts, the Protection of Employees (Fixed Term Work) Act, and the Payment of Wages Act 1991.

WRC Upholds Unfair Dismissal Complaint – Fixed Term Contract Did Not Contain Appropriate Waiver

22nd August 2023 A Worker v A Health Service Provider ADJ-00037789 concerned a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 –2015 (the “Acts”). The Complainant argued that she was unfairly dismissed after being assured that her post would be made permanent over time.

High Court Finds that School Principal Should be Reinstated after Eleven Years

22nd August 2023 The High Court has recently upheld the decision of the Labour Court that a Principal of a primary school was unfairly dismissed, eleven and a half years after he was first placed on administrative leave. In An Bord Banistíochta, Gaelscoil Moshíológ v The Labour Court [2023] IEHC 484, the High Court (Cregan J.) described the case as “a shocking story of a terrible injustice done to Mr. Ó Suird.” (the Principal/Notice Party).

Supreme Court Finds that HSE was Reasonable in Suspending Consultant

25th July 2023 The Supreme Court has recently considered the legal position relating to workplace suspensions in the case of Ray O’Sullivan v The Health Service Executive [2023] IESC 11.

Solicitor Awarded €30,000 for Dismissal from Firm while Pregnant

25th July 2023 The Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) case of Orla Howe v Colm Kelly, Healy Crowley Ahearn ADJ-00038992 was a complaint seeking adjudication under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 (“Act”) in respect of the Complainant’s dismissal while pregnant.

WRC Orders Re-Engagement of Dismissed Employee

25th July 2023 Robert Newton v Go-Ahead Transport Services (Dublin) Limited ADJ-00043139 concerned a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977-2015. The Complainant argued that he was unfairly dismissed from the Respondent and that the Respondent failed to take account of mitigating circumstances.

Employee Subjected to Penalisation for Raising Serious Breach of Health and Safety Awarded €20,000

25th July 2023 The case of Patrick O’Connor v Wexford County Council ADJ-00040852 involved a complaint under Section 28 of Health and Safety at Work Act (the “Act”) by the Complainant that he was penalised by the Respondent for raising a health and safety complaint of a very serious nature.

Complainant Summarily Dismissed Due to Anticipated Breach of Non-Compete Clause Receives Unfair Dismissal Award

25th July 2023 The Complainant in Andrew Revell v Life and Balance Centre ADJ-00039884 was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct for being in breach or anticipated breach of his non-compete clause. 

Constructive Dismissal Claim Succeeds Even Without Exhausting Internal Procedures Due to Employer’s Conduct

27th June 2023 It is well established that in cases of constructive dismissal, an employee is generally expected to have exhausted his or her employer’s internal procedures before leaving employment.

Employee Fails in Her Claim of Lack of Reasonable Accommodation Due to Her Solicitor’s Letter

27th June 2023 The Adjudicator in this case found that the principles in Nano Nagle in relation to reasonable accommodation did not apply due to the Respondent receiving a letter from the Complainant’s solicitor early in her sick leave objecting to it contacting her while she was on certified sick leave.

Dismissal of Imprisoned Employee deemed Unfair as his Contract was Held Not to Have Been Frustrated

27th June 2023 The Complainant in Muiris Flynn v Iarnrod Eireann ADJ-00030195 brought an unfair dismissal complaint against his former employer, alleging that the purported rationale for his dismissal,

Employer Failed to Provide Reasonable Accommodation to Employee Suffering with Alcoholism

27th June 2023 Eamon Murphy v Michael Connolly & Sons Limited Supervalu Supermarket is a recent Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) case concerning alleged discrimination on the grounds of disability,

WRC Discrimination Finding where Art Teacher was Replaced with her Maternity Leave Substitute

27th June 2023 In the case of Sarah Adam v Dublin and Dun Laoghaire Education and Training Board ADJ-00028925 the Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) was very critical of the interview process carried out by the Respondent school board following the Complainant’s return from maternity leave.

WRC Permitted Amendment to Complaint Form to Reflect Alternative Legislation as Basis for Claim

27th June 2023 Conor Williamson v David Stone and Carol Stone t/a Ashton Dog Pound and Warden Service came before an Adjudicator of the Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) in October 2021 and again in June 2022.

WRC Upholds Victimisation Complaint and Orders Respondent to Appoint Complainant to the Role

27th June 2023 In Tara McManus v Garda Representative Association ADJ-00028686 the Complainant claimed that she had been unlawfully discriminated against on the basis of her gender in her application for the position of Assistant to the General Secretary of the Respondent.

Employee Awarded 1/3rd of Loss – WRC Prepared to Accept that One of Three Reasons for his Dismissal was his Application for Paternity Leave

27th June 2023 The Complainant in Mark Maunders v Overhead Doors Ireland Limited ADJ-00033788 brought an unfair dismissal complaint against his former employer, alleging that he was dismissed for a combination of three reasons, one of which was because he had applied for two weeks’ paternity leave.

Employer Justified in Increasing Sanction from Final Written Warning to Summary Dismissal on Appeal

27th June 2023 In Martin Browne v Egis Road and Tunnel Operation Ireland Limited ADJ-00019705 the Complainant was issued with a Final Written Warning and a two-week unpaid suspension from work.

Employer Found to be Justified in not Selecting Complainant with Disability for Role

27th June 2023 William Morris v Iarnrod Eireann Irish Rail ADJ-00027184 is an interesting recent decision from the Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) which examined whether an employer’s decision not to hire someone with a disability was justified on the basis of its medical policy in the context of a safety critical role.

Right to Statutory Redundancy Payment Distinct and Separate from Right to Redress Under Unfair Dismissals Act

27th June 2023 Facts: The Complainant was a Fleet Training Manager who was employed with the Respondent for 15 years prior to his dismissal. 

“No-Fault Dismissal” Deemed to be Substantively Unfair

27th June 2023 In Caroline Mcaree v Newbrook Nursing Home Ulc Drumbear Lodge Nursing Home ADJ-00030614 the Complainant submitted a complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977-2015 (the “Acts”) that she was unfairly dismissed without reason or explanation.

Long Awaited – Sick Leave Act 2022

27th June 2023 The highly anticipated Sick Leave Act (“the Act”) was finally signed into law by the President on 22 July this year, however the provisions of the Act are not due to commence until 2023.

Dismissal Upheld but Date of Dismissal Amended Which Cost the Employer

27th June 2023 In the case of Tara Keating v. Camfil (Ire) Ltd ADJ-00030501 the Adjudicator agreed that the dismissal date was in fact after the outcome of the disciplinary appeal, rather than as per the outcome of the disciplinary hearing.

Constructive Dismissal Finding, but What More Could the Employer Have Done?

27th June 2023 The Complainant in Frank O’Dwyer v Tesco Ireland ADJ-00034404 brought a constructive dismissal complaint against his former employer, Tesco Ireland, alleging that he was left with no alternative but to terminate his employment because of bullying on the part of the Store Manager.

Dismissal of Employee With Autoimmune Disease During Covid 19 Deemed Discriminatory

27th June 2023 In the recent WRC case of Damien  O’Sullivan v Fg Wilson Engineering (Dublin) Limited – ADJ-00030123 an employee was awarded €41,076.00 for a dismissal that was deemed to be a discriminatory dismissal in breach of the Employment Equality Acts 1998-2015.

Fixed-Term Worker entitled to Contract of Indefinite Duration Despite Breaks in Service

27th June 2023 In Alessio Caratti O Garatti v Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies (“DIAS”) the Complainant was employed by the Respondent as a Postdoctoral researcher on a number of Fixed Term contracts in the years 2014 to 2021. 

Despite Seriously Flawed Procedures, Zero Compensation Awarded for Unfair Dismissal

27th June 2023 In Bridget Clarke v Paul Connolly[1], the Adjudicator found that the Respondent had unfairly dismissed the Complainant as he had not afforded the Complainant with her the basic rights of natural justice before making the decision of dismissal.

Labour Court Overturns WRC Finding of Discrimination – “Very Basis” for Complaint Not Well Founded

27th June 2023 David Aranda Petit Delice Limited v Jessica Padayachee – EDA2219 is a recent Labour Court appeal of a decision of the Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”).

WRC Upholds Constructive Dismissal Complaint Following Employer’s Inadequate Response to Bullying Complaint

27th June 2023 In Jade Gannon v Fides Playhouse Limited[1], the Complainant issued three complaints against her former employer, including a claim for constructive dismissal under the Unfair Dismissals legislation.

Labour Court Increased Unfair Dismissal Award in Employer’s Appeal

27th June 2023 In the recent Labour Court case of Starrus Eco Holdings Limited t/a Panda/Greenstar v Ben Madichie, Determination No. UDD2247, the Respondent (employer) appealed the decision of a WRC Adjudicator,

Claim Against Employer for Discriminatory Dismissal during Maternity Leave Fails as WRC found Employee had Resigned

27th June 2023 The recent WRC case of Svetlana Grodzicka v Astra Leisure and Ultra Fresh Services Limited – ADJ-00029417 involved allegations of discrimination on the grounds of family status and gender.

Period of Unpaid Lay-Off Disregarded in Calculating Payment In Lieu of Notice

27th June 2023 Facts: The Complainant was employed by the Respondent from November 1989 until March 2020 when she was was laid off due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

Labour Court Varies Redress Ordered by WRC, Replacing Compensation for Reinstatement Despite “Misgivings”

27th June 2023 In Access IT CLG/Access IT v Andrea Galgey[1], the “Respondent” appealed the redress ordered by the Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) to the Labour Court (“Court”).

Sexual Harassment Claim Fails As Court Finds That Reasonable Steps Were Taken By The Employer

27th June 2023 This case was a Labour Court (“Court”) appeal from three decisions of the Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) regarding complaints under the Employment Equality Acts, 1998-2015 (the “Acts”).

Unfair Dismissal Decision Reiterates the Importance of Fair Procedures

27th June 2023 Facts: The case of Fit4Life Gym v Megan Healy[1] was an appeal to the Labour Court from a Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) decision awarding the Complainant compensation of €21,736 for unfair dismissal. At the time of her dismissal, the Complainant was earning €416.00 per week.

Intern on Work Experience Held Not to be Entitled to National Minimum Wage

27th June 2023 Facts: The Complainant was an unpaid intern with the Respondent as part of work experience for his university degree.

Significant Award For Employee Dismissed due to Protected Disclosure

27th June 2023 Facts: The Complainant commenced work on 5^th August 2021 as a part-time receptionist in the smaller of the two veterinary practices owned by the Respondent. Only two staff were required at any one time, being a receptionist and vet.

New Sectoral Employment Order (Construction Sector) 2023

27th June 2023 The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment recently published the Sectoral Employment Order (Construction Sector) 2023 (“the Order”) which has been approved by the Oireachtas.

Dismissal Within the Band of Reasonableness for Breaching Smoking Ban, but Deemed Unfair Due to Investigation

27th June 2023 In the recent case of Darren Kiernan v Joseph Brennan Bakeries ADJ-00039331 the Complainant was dismissed for smoking in his personal van in the Respondent’s parking lot, rather than in the designated smoking shed.

Director Held to be an Employee and Awarded Compensation under Unfair Dismissals Acts

27th June 2023 Facts: The Complainant was one of two original directors of the Respondent, Tile & Wood Factory Outlet (Limerick) Limited, along with her husband when the company was set up on 21^st April 2016 as a single-member company.

Employer Directed to Amend Parental Leave Policy and Remove Requirement for Approval

27th June 2023 The Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) case of Elizabeth O’Reilly v Avista CLG was brought under Section 18 of the Parental Leave Act 1998 (“the Act”) in respect of the Complainant’s persistent issues with her employer in respect of her applications for parental leave.

High Court Rules that Disciplinary Process Should Proceed, but Lifts Plaintiff’s Suspension

27th June 2023 In Amanda Hennigan v An Comisiún Le Rincí Gaelacha [2023] IEHC 87, the Plaintiff applied to the High Court for an interlocutory injunction restraining the Respondent from pursuing disciplinary proceedings against her.

Labour Court Overturns WRC Finding of Discrimination where Pregnant Employee was Denied the Opportunity to Work Remotely During the COVID-19 Pandemic

27th June 2023 In the Labour Court case, Saint John of God Community Services v. Ann Doherty EDA 2313,the Respondent employer appealed the Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) finding that the Complainant had been discriminated against on the grounds of her family status.

WRC Awards €30,000 Due To Employer Not Complying with Code of Practice for Longer Working When Enforcing Mandatory Retirement Age

27th June 2023 In the case of Brendan Beirne v Rosderra Irish Meats Group ADJ00027036 the Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) addressed the application of mandatory retirement ages  and how to deal with requests for longer working.

Employer’s Response to Sexual Harassment Complaint Insufficient Despite Complainant’s Request to Deal with It “Quietly”

27th June 2023 In the case of Nadine Harty v Causeway Hospitality Ltd Greenway Manor Hotel ADJ-00036502 the Complainant alleged that she was discriminated against on grounds of gender and that she was subjected to sexual harassment and harassment in the workplace.

Award for Constructive Dismissal Where Employer did not Progress Grievance

27th June 2023 In the case of Ciaran Roche v 3Rockeco Limited (ADJ-00035648) the Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) was required to consider whether 3Rockeco Limited (the “Respondent”) had acted so unreasonably as to amount to a repudiatory breach of its contract of employment with its employee, Ciaran Roche (the “Complainant”). 

WRC Finds that Employer Acted Unreasonably in Failing to Make Genuine Efforts to Contact Employee Who Was Absent from Work

27th June 2023 The recent Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) case of Kamil Goljanek v Lidl Ireland Gmbh ADJ-0037483 contains an interesting set of facts and examines the extent to which an employer is expected to make reasonable and genuine efforts to contact an employee who is absent from work and not engaging in an investigation or disciplinary process.

Employee Awarded €5,000 for Harassment After Being “Outed” at Work, but Victimisation Claim Fails

27th June 2023 Facts: The Complainant is employed by the Respondent in a creche. She submitted a complaint under the Employment Equality Acts (the “Acts”), claiming that she was harassed on the grounds of sexual orientation and victimised as a result of making a complaint about the harassment.

Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023

27th June 2023 The Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023 (the “Act”) was signed into law by the President on 4^th April 2023.

WRC Finds Employee Discriminated Against in Context of Probationary Review

27th June 2023 In the case of Ivana Cepo v Sherborough Enterprises Ltd ADJ-00035362 before the Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”), the Complainant contended that she suffered discrimination and harassment on the basis of family and gender grounds and that she was dismissed on that basis.

Claim of Discriminatory Dismissal During Probation Successful Despite Employee’s Unsatisfactory Performance

27th June 2023 The case of Sandra Varian v Zahra Publishing Limited ADJ-00036775 came before the Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) recently.

WRC Confirms Genuine Redundancy

27th June 2023 Facts: In Edward Timmons v AB Group Packaging Ireland Limited ADJ-0030801 the Complainant alleged he had been unfairly dismissed and submitted a complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977-2015 (the “Acts”).

Reinstatement Ordered Where Employer Refused Employee’s Request to Withdraw her Resignation

27th June 2023 The case of A Social Care Worker v Social Services Charity came before WRC Adjudicator, Brian Dalton, in January 2023 under the Unfair Dismissals Acts.

Employee or Independent Contractor? WRC Provides Useful Overview of the Relevant Legal Tests

27th June 2023 In Maurice Morgan v GK Munster Couriers Limited ADJ-00032720, the Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) was required to consider the employment status of the Complainant, Mr Morgan.

Claim of Discriminatory Dismissal During Probation Successful Despite Employee’s Unsatisfactory Performance

27th June 2023 The case of Sandra Varian v Zahra Publishing Limited ADJ-00036775 came before the Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) recently.

WRC Finds Employee Discriminated Against in Context of Probationary Review

27th June 2023 In the case of Ivana Cepo v Sherborough Enterprises Ltd ADJ-00035362 before the Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”), the Complainant contended that she suffered discrimination and harassment on the basis of family and gender grounds and that she was dismissed on that basis.

Reinstatement Ordered Where Employer Refused Employee’s Request to Withdraw her Resignation

27th June 2023 The case of A Social Care Worker v Social Services Charity came before WRC Adjudicator, Brian Dalton, in January 2023 under the Unfair Dismissals Acts.

WRC Confirms Genuine Redundancy

27th June 2023 Facts: In Edward Timmons v AB Group Packaging Ireland Limited ADJ-0030801 the Complainant alleged he had been unfairly dismissed and submitted a complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977-2015 (the “Acts”).

WRC Reiterates the Requirement for Redundancy to be Impersonal and the Importance of Following a Redundancy Consultation Process and Considering Alternatives

16th May 2022 Facts: The Complainant, Gerard Buston, commenced employment with the Respondent, Duggan Systems Limited, as a factory operative on 30^th May 2018 and subsequently worked as a line leader from 18^th November 2019. In 2020 he was placed on temporary lay-off from 30^th March to 10^th April. Later that month an altercation took place between the Complainant and his manager. There was a conflict of evidence as to which party was the aggressor. The Complainant was not called for work the following week and he subsequently received a letter from the Managing Director terminating his employment by reason of redundancy. There was redundancy consultation process and no alternatives to redundancy were considered or discussed with the Complainant.

Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Bill – General Scheme Gains Government Approval

16th May 2022 The General Scheme of the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Bill 2022 (“the Bill”) that is due to be implemented later this year was approved by Cabinet on 21^st April. The General Scheme contains proposed amendments to various pieces of legislation including the Parental Leave Act 1998, the Maternity Protection Act 1994, and the Adoptive Leave Act 1995, required in line with certain articles of the EU Work-Life Balance Directive which is due to be transposed into Irish law by 2^nd August this year.

WRC Dismisses Payment of Wages Claim – Contractual Term Allowed the Respondent to Deduct Costs Associated with Failure to Provide Notice

16th May 2022 In Brigid Walsh v PV Generation Limited, the Complainant issued a complaint under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 seeking reimbursement of outstanding salary that had been deferred due to the Covid-19 pandemic in circumstances where the Respondent had undertaken to reimburse any deferred salary. An express written term of the Complainant’s contract of employment permitted the deduction from her termination pay of an amount equal to the costs of covering her duties during her notice period in the event of her failing to provide the Respondent with notice of resignation.

Labour Court Finds That Providing a Proper Translator at Appeal Stage Did Not Mend the Unfairness of Disciplinary Process Where He Was Summarily Dismissed

16th May 2022 In Sylwester Michalski v Strandvous Limited the Respondent Company did not provide a translator to its Polish national employee with poor English, allow him access to all the witnesses and incorrectly determined his actions to constitute gross misconduct during the disciplinary process.

Statutory Redundancy Payment No Longer Taken into Account when Calculating Unfair Dismissal Award

16th May 2022 In the recent decision of the WRC in the case of Kieran Murray v Sherry Garden Rooms Limited, ADJ-00028766, the Complainant took a claim for Unfair Dismissal against the Respondent. The Respondent argued that the Complainant had been made redundant. The Complainant was awarded €32,833.70. When calculating the Complainant’s financial loss,  Adjudicator did take into account the PUP payment or the Statutory Redundancy lump sum payment that he had received.

Covid 19 – A timely reminder of employer obligations in respect of layoff, short time and redundancies

19th June 2020 The first part of May saw a number of developments in relation to returning employees to work including the publication of the  Government’s “Roadmap for reopening society and business” on 1st May and the subsequent publication of the “Return to Work Safety Protocol” on 9th May. For further detail on these developments and employer obligations upon returning employees to the workplace have a look at our recent article “Returning to Work – the New Normal”, available at this link.

Covid-19 and Employment Law – Milestones in May

19th June 2020

May has been a very busy month from an employment law perspective. There have been a number of government announcements and updates that directly impact employer and employee obligations and entitlements. These updates are summarised below:

WRC Held Unfair Selection For Redundancy As Employer Failed To Prove Criteria Justifying…..

10th June 2020 The Complainant has just over one and half years of service with the Respondent and was made redundant, while a colleague with lesser service with the Respondent was retained. The Complainant claimed the personal animus between her and the new Managing Director and her request for salary increase has influenced her selection for redundancy.

Interesting Decision On Extension Of Employment Post-mandatory Retirement Age

10th June 2020

The Complainant was employed as Operations Manager from 1982 to 17^th June 2019 and was paid €54,451.92. The Respondent has a mandatory retirement age of 65 years. The Complainant was due to turn 65 years on 14^th June 2017. He requested the HR that he wished to remain in employment and received a written contract for that year from the date of his retirement. The following year, he requested to continue employment, which was agreed by the Respondent and the Complainant received a written contract to continue employment for another year. On 18^th April 2019, the Complainant was advised that the CEO of the Respondent Company would not be extending the Complainant’s employment further and that his employment would end on 17^th June 2019.

Max Two Years’ Salary Awarded For Discriminatory Dismissal

10th June 2020 On 20th March 2019, the Respondent terminated the Complainant’s employment with immediate effect for alleged failure by the Complainant to furnish medical certificates for a period of 18 days. The Complainant was a full time counter hand/ shop assistant with the Respondent from 2nd June 2015.

Significant Constructive Dismissal Decision – Award included financial loss while on unfit to work

10th June 2020 The Complainant was employed by the Respondent for just under 29 years. The Respondent operates a hotel/guesthouse and conference centre. The Complainant had no written contract of employment but held the most senior position – Manager/General Manager before the Respondent hired a CEO and carried out a restructure. The Complainant’s responsibilities were transferred to the new role of Hospitality Manager which reported directly to the CEO and a further layer of management was introduced who all reported to the Hospitality Manager. The Complainant was offered the demoted role of Revenue Manager and to report to the Hospitality Manager. Her salary was not going to be altered but her responsibility was diminished. She was presented with a new written contract but refused to sign it.  The Complainant was subjected to further isolation in the new demoted role which had a serious impact on her health and mental wellbeing with the result that she went out on certified sick leave on 3 January 2018 and ultimately resigned her position on 18 May 2018.

Bartender Awarded One Year’s Pay For Dismissal After Serving Alcohol To An Underaged Customer

10th June 2020 The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent pub in March 2014 as a Bar Tender. On 4th July 2019, the Respondent alleged that the Complainant served alcohol to two customers who were under the age of 23 years without asking for age identification and they turned out to be 17 years old and 18 years old. The Respondent had a mystery shopper at the premises at the time. The Complainant was suspended on pay and a disciplinary process was initiated. A disciplinary hearing took place on 8th July and the Complainant’s dismissal was confirmed by letter of 12th July for Gross Misconduct. The Complainant appealed the outcome, which was heard on 31st July 2019 and the dismissal was confirmed.

€104,000 awarded to Employee for Unfair Dismissal due to Employer’s Conduct

10th June 2020 The Complainant was employed as the Operations Director for the Respondent and had been employed by the Respondent for 26 years. The Complainant had a close personal relationship with Mr C, the owner and knew him for about 31 years and he was the godfather of the Complainant’s only daughter.

WRC Awards €45,000.00 in Discrimination Dismissal Claim on top of Statutory Redundancy Payment

10th June 2020 The Complainant commenced employment with the Company (a producer and retailer of specialised pork products) in September 2005, starting as a general operative and before her employment was terminated in May 2019, she held the position of supervisor.

Reopening the workplace – The New Normal

10th June 2020 Practical tips on implementing the governments Return to Work Safety Protocol

Update in respect of Covid-19 Temporary Wage Subsidy scheme

24th May 2020

n a previous article dated 30^th March  2020 (available here), we discussed the workings of the Government’s Temporary Wage Subsidy Scheme which is aimed at helping employers to keep employees on the payroll for the duration of the Covid-19 crisis (whether or not those employees are still working) so that businesses can resume normal operations more easily after the crisis.

Covid-19 Temporary Wage Subsidy Scheme

24th May 2020 On Friday 27th March, 2020, the Emergency Meausures in the Public Interest (COVID-19) Bill 2020 was passed by the Dáil Éireann. Section 28 of the Bill is a key provision from an employment law perspective. It provides a legislative basis for the recently introduced Temporary Wage Subsidy Scheme (the “Scheme”) being operated by the Irish Revenue Commissioners (Revenue).

Update from WRC and Labour Court

24th May 2020

WRC: Dealing with adjudication complaints during the period of Covid-19 related restrictions.

Zalewski v Workplace Relations Commission [2010] IEHC 178

24th May 2020

The High Court has dismissed a challenge to the constitutionality of the Workplace Relations Commission procedures in the case of Zalewski v Workplace Relations Commission [2020] IEHC 178.

Are your Restrictive Covenants enforceable? The key takeaways from Ryanair DAC v Bellew

24th May 2020

The well-publicised recent High Court decision in the case of Ryanair DAC v Bellew [2019] IEHC907 has highlighted the importance of making sure restrictive covenants are tightly drafted and well-tailored to the facts of the situation.

Landmark Supreme Court decision on the obligation to provide reasonable accommodation to employees

24th May 2020

The Supreme Court decision handed down in the long running case of Nano Nagle School v. Marie Daly [2019] IESC 63.The case raised very important questions around how the duty of an employer to provide reasonable accommodation to employees with disabilities should be interpreted.