In a rapidly changing workplace environment, employers face an increasing range of legal, regulatory and compliance obligations. From legislative initiatives and policy reforms to evolving interpretations of employment rights by the Workplace Relations Commission and the courts, organisations must remain alert to developments that may impact their workforce policies, practices and decision-making. Staying informed of these changes is essential to managing risk, maintaining compliance and supporting effective workforce management.
This month, we are examining a series of significant Workplace Relations Commission and Labour Court decisions that illustrate the range of legal and procedural risks facing employers, from redundancy and dismissal to wage entitlements, employment status and workplace safety.
Labour Court Sets Aside Unfair Dismissal Award as Redundancy Following Protected Leave Deemed Genuine
Case: Securitas Security Services (Ireland) Limited v Aisling Walsh (UDD2629, 11 August 2026)
The Complainant was employed by the respondent from 10 October 2022 as a People and Communications Partner (PCP) on a specific client site, earning €55,000 gross per year. She commenced maternity leave on 16 January 2023 and was due back on 1 November 2023 after an extended leave period, but was dismissed by reason of redundancy with effect from 24 February 2024. An Adjudication Officer had found the dismissal unfair and awarded €27,500, and the respondent appealed that decision to the Labour Court. The complainant's contract stated the PCP role was specific to the client contract and subject to continuous client approval, and the respondent says the role became redundant on 15 September 2023 when the client removed it for budget reasons, before she had returned from leave.
The Complainant argued she was unfairly dismissed because the terms offered to her on return from protected leave differed from those she held before her leave, and that she was prevented from resuming employment following the expiry of her maternity leave. She pointed to being told there was no need to return to work in November 2023, to a resignation request by email in October 2023, and to being placed on "Garden Leave" as evidence the outcome was predetermined. The five alternative roles offered (HR Screening Assistant €35k, Recruitment Co-Ordinator €42k, People Engagement and Culture Ambassador €42k, Employee Relations Administrator €45k, HR Administrator €40k) were all lower-paid, more junior, and in some cases only available via open competition, and she was not offered a suitable HR Business Partner role at another site. She said she had a relevant degree but did not apply for the more senior role as she received no encouragement to do so.
The Respondent denied unfair dismissal, maintaining the PCP role was genuinely redundant once the client withdrew it, and that it made genuine efforts to find the complainant a suitable alternative role. It stressed there is no statutory obligation to consult in an individual redundancy but that it nonetheless consulted for over 10 weeks, offering roles both internally and with other clients, none of which the complainant would accept because they did not match her PCP terms. Its HR Director gave evidence that she proactively contacted the Complainant before her return, placed her on paid Garden Leave rather than unpaid lay-off to preserve her salary during consultation, was willing to waive qualification requirements for two roles, and that the complainant's €55,000 salary, set by the client for a client-specific role, was well above comparable internal HR roles, of which there were only eight or nine posts.
Decision
The Court found a genuine redundancy situation existed under section 7(2)(b) of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967, since the client had terminated the unique, site-specific PCP role, and it was reasonable to confine the redundancy selection to the Complainant alone. The Court accepted the Respondent's explanation for the lower salaries on offer and found the Complainant was entitled to decline the roles as unsuitable, but that ultimately no suitable alternative existed. Although the Court had "some difficulties" with the necessity of classifying the Complainant's status as Garden Leave, it accepted this was done in good faith to keep her on full pay during an extended consultation period rather than placing her on unpaid lay-off. The Court confirmed the Complainant was not dismissed
while on maternity leave, that her termination was unconnected to her pregnancy or protected leave, and that the Respondent's conduct in implementing the redundancy was substantially reasonable. The Court found the dismissal by reason of redundancy was not unfair and set aside the Adjudication Officer's decision, reversing the €27,500 award.
Employer Takeaways
- Even where individual redundancy consultation is not a strict statutory requirement, run a genuine, extended, well-documented consultation process, particularly where the employee is returning from protected leave.
- Identify and offer a reasonable range of alternative roles, and consider waiving qualification criteria where appropriate to maximise the chance of retaining the employee.
- Where no immediate role exists, favour paid arrangements rather than unpaid lay-off during the consultation period, but be prepared to justify unusual classifications like "Garden Leave" clearly and consistently.
- Keep communications during the process clear and carefully documented, since ambiguous wording can later be characterised as predetermination and ensure any redundancy is demonstrably linked to business/client requirements rather than the employee's pregnancy or leave.
Why This Matters
This decision confirms that a genuine, client-driven redundancy affecting a role held by an employee on protected leave can be fair, provided the termination is unconnected to the pregnancy or leave itself and the employer follows a substantially reasonable process. It also shows that an employee's legitimate refusal of unsuitable alternative roles does not automatically render a subsequent dismissal unfair, and that some imperfections in the consultation process will not tip a dismissal into unfairness if the overall process was reasonable. The Labour Court's reversal of the Adjudication Officer's finding and award also illustrates how first-instance and appellate assessments of "reasonableness" in redundancy consultations can diverge significantly on the same facts.
University of Limerick President Wins Injunction Restraining Renewed Disciplinary Investigation
Case:Mey v University of Limerick [2026] IEHC 479
Kerstin Mey, who served as President of the University of Limerick, became the subject of a protected disclosure following a controversy surrounding a property acquisition known as the Rhebogue transaction and subsequent hearings before the Oireachtas Public Accounts Committee (PAC). The disclosure raised concerns as to whether the plaintiff had given misleading evidence to the PAC concerning the absence of the university's Chief Corporation Officer from a PAC meeting. An independent investigator, Ms Jenkinson, concluded in April 2024 that the plaintiff had responded truthfully throughout.
Following that finding, the defendant offered the plaintiff reduced terms and conditions of employment. The plaintiff accepted those terms pursuant to a settlement agreement executed on 14 June 2024, reached after a three-day mediation. The agreement included a warranty on the part of the defendant not to pursue disciplinary proceedings in respect of any matters arising prior to the date of the agreement, subject to an exception where new evidence of serious misconduct or fraud came to light.
More than a year after the settlement was concluded, the University sought to re-engage Ms Jenkinson to revisit the original allegations in light of further statements made at a later PAC meeting. The plaintiff moved for an interlocutory injunction to restrain that process. Bolger J. granted the injunction, holding that the plaintiff had established a fair and serious question that the settlement agreement precluded the defendant from reviving the investigation in anticipation that fresh evidence might emerge, particularly given that the plaintiff had accepted less favourable employment terms as part of a negotiated resolution intended to bring the matter to a close. The court further held that the defendant's statutory obligations under section 6A of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 did not give rise to an open-ended duty to reopen matters that had already been fully investigated and settled.
Decision
On the balance of convenience, the court found that relief ought to be granted, as the plaintiff stood to suffer potentially irreparable reputational damage were the process permitted to proceed. The case was directed to proceed to trial without delay, with costs reserved to the trial judge.
Employer Takeaways
- Honour the terms of a settlement agreement. Where disciplinary or investigative proceedings are resolved by way of a negotiated settlement, particularly one involving concessions from the employee, employers must treat that agreement as final. Attempting to revive the same allegations, even on the basis of anticipated new evidence, risks breaching both the express terms of the agreement and the implied duty of mutual trust and confidence.
- Draft settlement exceptions narrowly and carefully. Where an employer wishes to reserve the right to reopen matters in the event of new evidence, any such carve-out must be precisely worded. A broadly drafted exception will not be construed as a licence to reopen an investigation speculatively or in anticipation that further evidence may emerge.
- Understand the limits of statutory obligations. An employer's obligations under the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 do not create an open-ended duty to reinvestigate matters that have already been fully investigated and settled. Statutory duties operate within, not in override of, contractual commitments already made.
Why This Matters
This decision highlights that settlement agreements in employment disputes carry real and enforceable weight. Employers who extract concessions from an employee, including reduced terms, in exchange for finality cannot subsequently seek to unwind that finality when it becomes inconvenient. It also highlights that reputational harm to a senior employee arising from a revived investigation can, in itself, constitute sufficient grounds for interlocutory relief, even before any formal finding is made. Employers should approach post-settlement conduct with considerable caution.
WRC Awards Notice Pay to Worker Despite Finding He Was Not Legally Employed for First Three Months
Case: Garth Jones v The Pod Factory Ltd (ADJ-00059760, 24 July 2026)
A business analyst employed by The Pod Factory Ltd was dismissed by phone on 31 January 2025, having commenced what he believed to be employment on 18 June 2024. The case raised two significant and intersecting legal issues: whether work performed without a valid work permit can constitute employment, and whether a contract of employment issued before a permit is granted can be relied upon to determine the terms that apply once lawful employment begins.
The Respondent's position was that the Complainant had acted as an independent contractor through a Portuguese company he owned for the period from June to late September 2024, and that the employment contract bearing a June 2024 start date had been provided solely to assist with his visa application. The Respondent argued that lawful employment only commenced on 26 September 2024, when the Complainant's work permit was granted.
The Adjudicating Officer accepted this analysis in part. The period from June to September 2024 could not be treated as employment, irrespective of the existence of a contract, because the complainant was not eligible to work in Ireland until his work permit was granted on 26 September 2024, meaning any purported employment prior to that date would have been illegal and outside the scope of the Payment of Wages Act 1991. The claim for unpaid wages relating to that earlier period therefore failed.
Decision
However, the contract that had been issued to facilitate the visa application did not disappear from the picture entirely. The Adjudicating Officer found that the Complainant had completed his probationary period by the time he was dismissed, and that the contract therefore entitled him to four weeks' notice rather than the one week the Respondent had paid. The Complainant was awarded €3,434 representing three weeks and four days' unpaid notice pay. The holiday pay claim was dismissed, the Adjudicating Officer finding that all holidays due had been taken.
Employer Takeaways
- Do not issue a contract of employment to facilitate a visa or work permit application if it does not reflect the true position. A contract issued for administrative convenience may be treated as binding on the employer in respect of its terms, including notice periods and probation, once lawful employment does commence.
- Maintain clear records distinguishing contractor arrangements from employment. Where an individual is working as an independent contractor prior to receiving a work permit, payment arrangements and any invoicing should be clearly documented to support that characterisation.
- Ensure notice periods reflect actual service and probationary status. Where there is genuine ambiguity about when employment began, employers should not assume a short probationary notice period will apply without careful analysis of the contract and the circumstances.
Why This Matters
This decision highlights that an employment contract cannot be used selectively. An employer who issues a contract to assist an employee with immigration formalities cannot later rely on the illegality of the pre-permit period to avoid all consequences of that contract. The terms of the document will be examined once lawful employment commences, and a favourable notice or probation clause will not simply be set aside. Employers operating in sectors where migrant workers are common, or where contractor-to-employee transitions occur, should ensure their documentation accurately reflects the legal relationship at each stage, or risk having their own paperwork used against them.
WRC Rules that Contractor Label Will Not Shield Agency from Wages Claim
Case: Gheorghe Vasile Silvesan v Manning Global Limited (ADJ-00062304, 24 July 2026)
A data centre technician who was recruited by an employment agency, placed with a technology company, and paid through an umbrella company structure was awarded over €7,000 in unpaid wages after the WRC found that his working relationship with the agency constituted employment, notwithstanding that he had been engaged ostensibly as a self-employed contractor through a personal services company.
Gheorghe Vasile Silvesan was contacted on LinkedIn by a recruiter at Manning Global Limited in February 2025 and agreed to be placed in a fixed-term role as a data centre delivery manager with Huawei Technologies (Ireland) Limited, based in Dublin 4. The arrangement involved five parties: the Complainant, the Respondent agency, Huawei as end client, a personal services company called Skymaster Limited, and Fenero, which provided payroll and tax services. The daily rate was €422.10, with the contract running for 12 months.
The Complainant worked demanding hours, regularly from 7am to 6pm, and submitted timesheets for 26 days in April 2025, including five days' overtime, all of which were approved by his Huawei manager. He resigned on 9 May 2025, citing excessive hours and poor working conditions. The Respondent refused to pay the April invoice, insisting that, as a Consultant and not an employee, the Complainant was not entitled to overtime, and sought payment for 21 days only. The Complainant was also warned that his refusal to work a 30-day notice period put his payment for services already delivered at risk.
The central legal question was whether the Complainant was an employee of Manning Global for the purposes of the Payment of Wages Act 1991, a question that required the adjudicating officer to engage with the Supreme Court's five-step framework from The Revenue Commissioners v Karshan (Midlands) Ltd t/a Domino’s Pizza [2023] IESC 24 (Karshan). The Respondent declined to attend the hearing, asserting that its contractual relationship was with Skymaster rather than with the Complainant personally.
Decision
Adjudicating Officer Catherine Byrne rejected that position. The Respondent had not contacted Skymaster seeking a suitable technician. It had specifically identified and selected the Complainant on LinkedIn, which is not typical of a commercial relationship with a supplier. The Complainant performed all the work personally throughout his engagement, attended Huawei's premises daily, used Huawei's equipment, and had no discretion regarding his attendance. Although his contract stated that he did not work exclusively for one client, the reality was precisely the opposite. The Adjudicating Officer noted the Code of Practice on Determining Employment Status, which states that efforts to describe a relationship in a way that differs from day-to-day reality in order to circumvent statutory provisions "will be challenged."
The Adjudicating Officer further held that there is no provision in law to deduct wages from an employee who refuses to work their notice period. The complaint was found to be well founded and the Respondent was directed to pay compensation of €7,134 as a net amount, reflecting deductions for PAYE, PRSI and USC.
Employer Takeaways
- Do not rely on contractual labels to determine employment status. Where the day-to-day reality of a working relationship is that of employment (personal service, fixed hours, exclusive engagement, use of the client's equipment) a contract that describes the worker as a consultant or supplier will carry limited weight. Following Karshan, adjudicators are required to look beyond contractual characterisation to the reality on the ground.
- Non-attendance at a WRC hearing carries significant risk. Where the Respondent declines to attend, the Adjudicating Officer will reach a decision based solely on the Complainant's evidence. Employers in multi-party staffing arrangements should not assume that a dispute is someone else's legal problem simply because their contract is with an intermediary entity.
- Wages for work already performed cannot lawfully be withheld as a lever to enforce a notice period. Where an employee refuses to work out notice, the appropriate remedy is a claim for damages for breach of contract, not the unilateral deduction of wages for services already delivered and approved.
Why This Matters
This decision illustrates the reach of the Karshan framework into staffing and agency arrangements. The Adjudicating Officer was satisfied that the reality of the Complainant's relationship with the Respondent was that of an employee and an employment agency, notwithstanding the five-party structure designed to present him as a self-employed contractor. Businesses that use agency, umbrella company, or personal services company arrangements to engage workers should not assume those structures will insulate them from employment law obligations. Where the substance of the engagement resembles employment, it is likely to be treated as such, and the consequences of withholding wages on that basis can include a direction to pay compensation before the WRC.
Parking Enforcement Officer Fails in Health and Safety Penalisation Claim Against Employer
Case:Ilavinio Vicente v Apcoa Parking Ireland Limited (ADJ-00059292, 27 July 2026)
A parking enforcement officer who alleged he was penalised by his employer for raising workplace health and safety concerns, including exposure to racial abuse, threats of violence, and work-related mental health injury, has had his complaint dismissed by the Workplace Relations Commission.
Ilavinio Vicente, who commenced employment with Apcoa Parking Ireland Limited on 3 May 2022 as a Parking Enforcement Officer, brought two complaints under Section 28 of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005. The matter was heard before Adjudication Officer Michael MacNamee on 16 June 2026.
Mr Vicente submitted that he had repeatedly informed the company that his absences were a direct result of cumulative workplace trauma including racial harassment, threats of physical violence, and sustained verbal abuse by members of the public, risks which he argued were specifically identified in Apcoa's own Risk Assessment. He further contended that despite repeated requests, the company had failed to refer him for an Occupational Health assessment, and had failed to implement its own documented welfare and support measures.
Mr Vicente had been issued with a written warning in April 2024, a further written warning in June 2024, and a Stage 3 final written warning in October 2024, each relating to continued uncertified leave and conduct issues. He argued that these disciplinary steps, and the employer's broader failures to support him, amounted to penalisation for raising legitimate health and safety concerns.
Decision
The Adjudication Officer rejected the claim in its entirety. On the question of the protected act, the Officer found that the Complainant had not adduced credible evidence to support the making of more than one report of racial abuse to the Respondent, which undermined his assertion that he had reported multiple incidents over a protracted period. It was also noted that the written communications raising health and safety concerns were not made spontaneously, but arose as a response to the disciplinary issues which the Respondent put to the Complainant from May to November 2024.
On the question of Occupational Health referral, the Officer confirmed that there is no stand-alone right in legislation to be referred for an Occupational Health assessment on request, and that where no medical certification specifying a work-related illness or injury had been provided, the Respondent was not obliged to make such a referral.
The timing of events also proved fatal to the claim. The cognisable period ran from 30 November 2024 to 30 May 2025, meaning that the disciplinary proceedings which concluded with the final written warning in October 2024 and the first written expression of health and safety concerns in June 2024 all pre-dated the period the WRC could consider. On causation, the Officer further found that the disciplinary charges clearly preceded any expression of concern for health and safety and could not therefore have been initiated "for" making a protected act.
Employer Takeaways
- Document all welfare engagements thoroughly. Where an employee raises concerns, even in the context of disciplinary proceedings, employers should record what steps were taken in response, including any offers of support, welfare check-ins, or signposting to available resources.
- Treat medical disclosures carefully and promptly. Once an employee provides medical certification indicating a work-related illness or injury, employers should consider an Occupational Health referral without undue delay. As this decision shows, the employer's own concession that a referral should have been made earlier can damage its position, even where the complaint ultimately fails.
- Ensure disciplinary processes are not conducted in a vacuum. Where an employee has raised, even informally, concerns about their health or wellbeing, employers should consider whether those concerns warrant investigation or referral before progressing disciplinary action relating to attendance.
- Implement the controls set out in your own risk assessments. Where a risk assessment identifies specific hazards such as verbal abuse or psychological harm for customer-facing staff and specifies control measures, failure to implement those measures creates reputational and legal exposure, regardless of whether a penalisation claim ultimately succeeds.
Why This Matters
This decision illustrates the significant procedural and evidential hurdles that employees face when bringing penalisation claims under health and safety legislation. It confirms that raising general concerns about workplace conditions is not, without more, sufficient to ground a successful claim. Claimants must be able to demonstrate a clear protected act, a defined detriment, and a causal link between the two and must do so within the strict six-month time limit. The decision also reinforces that exposure to workplace risk, without expert evidence to substantiate it, is unlikely to be treated as penalisation in isolation.
WRC Orders Re-Engagement of Production Operator Who Punched Delivery Driver
Case:Stephen Loughran v Almac Pharma Services Ireland Limited (ADJ-00059324, 21 July 2026)
Mr Loughran had worked as a production operator at his employer’s Dundalk site since December 2023, after several years there as an agency worker. He was dismissed without notice in April 2025, accused of serious misconduct following a fight with a food delivery driver in the car park during his break the previous month.
A group of colleagues ordered a takeaway which arrived around 40 minutes late, by which point their break was over. When the Complainant and his colleagues tried to turn the driver away, the driver reacted angrily, and the employee admitted swearing at him as he walked off. He said the driver then hit him first, and that he fought back briefly, holding the driver's arm and throwing punches, before the two separated. He maintained he was only defending himself. The company took a different view, arguing he had no reason to get involved in the first place, made things worse by swearing at the driver twice, and then hit back harder than necessary once the driver had started to back off.
The Adjudication Officer reviewed the CCTV footage and noted that the whole physical exchange took roughly six seconds from start to finish. On that basis, he found the Respondent’s judgment that he "could have walked away" gave him credit for a level of calm thinking that isn't realistic in the middle of a fast-moving altercation. He was also unconvinced by the other reasons given: the bad language was a one-off directed at a stranger rather than a colleague, he had no previous disciplinary history, and the suggestion that the incident might have damaged the company's reputation was pure speculation with nothing to back it up. The Adjudication Officer concluded the decision to dismiss the employee simply wasn't one a reasonable employer could have reached, so it failed on the merits alone.
The way the case was handled came in for even stronger criticism. The senior manager who ultimately chaired the disciplinary hearing and made the call to dismiss had also been the one who first got hold of the CCTV footage, effectively got the investigation moving, and arranged for the employee to be suspended, while HR did little more than sit in and take notes. A clear conflict between the employee's version of events and a witness's account was never chased up or resolved.
Decision
Both the decision itself and the way it was reached were unfair, so the adjudicator had to decide on a remedy. The Adjudication Officer stopped short of ordering full reinstatement with back pay, but did order that the Complainant either be given his old job back or an equivalent role at the Dundalk site six weeks after the decision, treating the time since his dismissal as an unpaid suspension rather than compensating him for lost earnings in full.
Employer Takeaways
- Maintain a clear separation of functions throughout the disciplinary process. Concentrating the evidence-gathering, investigative and decision-making roles in a single manager, as occurred here, is a significant departure from the standard of independence that fair procedures require.
- Address material inconsistencies between the employee's account, witness evidence, and any objective evidence such as CCTV footage. Unresolved discrepancies of this kind, particularly where scrutiny is applied selectively, will undermine the credibility of the process.
- When considering whether re-engagement or reinstatement is practicable, assess the employee's actual day-to-day working relationships and reporting lines, rather than relying solely on the views of a senior manager who may have limited direct contact with the employee.
Why This Matters
This decision is a reminder that procedural fairness is not a box-ticking exercise: an employer's disciplinary process will be judged on whether the roles of investigator, decision-maker, and evidence-gatherer were genuinely kept separate, not just on whether a hearing nominally took place. Here, the fact that HR's role was limited to note-taking while a single senior manager drove the investigation, arranged the suspension, and then chaired the dismissal hearing was treated as a fundamental flaw in itself, regardless of the underlying facts of the altercation.
The case also shows that employers cannot judge an employee's conduct in a fast-moving physical altercation against a standard of calm, deliberate decision-making that assumes time to reflect, and that any material conflict between the employee's account and a witness's version of events must be actively investigated and resolved, not left hanging. Reasons for dismissal that rest on unproven assumptions, such as unsubstantiated reputational damage, will not withstand scrutiny.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]