Employment
"Matheson's responsiveness, adaptability, tailored and client-focused service, in addition to its commercial approach and consistent availability makes the team stand out from competitors."
Employment: Chambers Europe 2025
Developments in Respect of the Right to Request Remote Working
As part of a legislative review, the government has announced a public consultation on the right to request remote and flexible working. The stated aim of the consultation is
“to hear directly from members of the public, employers and other stakeholders about how the legislation is operating in practice, whether it is clear and accessible, and whether it has presented any challenges or unintended consequences.”
As you know, the new legislation governing this area came into force in March 2024 and requires employers and employees to have regard to the corresponding Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) Code of Practice when considering applications for remote working arrangements. Disputes can be referred by an employee to the WRC if they believe an employer has failed to fulfil their obligations under the Code.
Collective Bargaining and the EWC Directive
The government published its Action Plan to Promote Collective Bargaining 2026–2030 (the “Plan”). This Plan aims to promote collective bargaining through a range of actions. Crucially, in line with recent EU case law, it does not go so far as to compel recognition: the Irish voluntarist industrial relations tradition remains. A new Code of Best Practice on Collective Bargaining will also be issued in due course.
The revised EWC Directive has been approved by the European Parliament and Council, and final publication is expected within weeks. Implementation will likely be required by January 2028.
We are doing a lot of work in the EWC space and if you would like to join one of our information sessions planned for 2026, please let us know.
WRC Decision in Respect of Whistleblowing
We are seeing a growing trend of employees attempting to represent particular complaints as being protected disclosures and likewise trying to suggest that any pursuant negative interaction with their employer is penalisation as a result of making the alleged disclosure.
In the latest episode of the Matheson Employment Law Podcast Series, Bryan Dunne, Head of Employment, explores a whistleblowing case in A Finance Manager v A Charity. The decision offers valuable insights into how an Adjudication Officer assesses whether a communication qualifies as a protected disclosure, and crucially, how they determine if an employee has been penalised for making one. It also sets out some of the key principles from the main case law in this area for employers to be aware of when assessing whether a protected disclosure has been made and also how to successfully defend any consequent penalisation claims.
You can access this latest episode here.
WRC Decision Regarding Age Discrimination
A common way for employers to manage requests to work longer than the mandatory retirement age is to offer a fixed-term contract. An interesting WRC decision in the case of Seamus Casey v Irish Heart Foundation CGL (the “IHF”) examined this practice. Mr. Casey was required under his contract of employment to retire before his 65th birthday. He was then offered a fixed term contract, which expired before his 68th birthday, but Mr. Casey brought a complaint on the basis that his contract was not renewed following the initial fixed term’s expiry. In addition to this, Mr. Casey alleged that he was being paid thousands of euro a year less than younger colleagues who were employed in the same role.
The Adjudication Officer (“AO”) found that, in signing the fixed term contract following his 65th birthday, he knew he was being offered employment on a final fixed-term basis and as such, he had not been dismissed on a discriminatory basis on the grounds of age: a welcome confirmation for employers. However, the AO agreed that there was discrimination under equal pay provisions in the equality legislation. The IHF was ordered to pay salary arrears and €15,000 in compensation to Mr Casey, for the effects of the ageist discrimination. The AO concluded that ‘there is no evidence of objective justification on the part of the Respondent as to why the Complainant was treated less favourable [sic] in being paid a lower hourly rate for the like work he carried out with the two valid named comparators.’
