Guidelines on the Wage Subsidy Scheme (EWSS)

August 25, 2020

GUIDELINES ON THE EMPLOYMENT WAGE SUBSIDY SCHEME (EWSS) 


Guidelines were released on the 14th August for the new Employment Wage Subsidy Scheme (EWSS), which is an economic support for businesses. There is a possibility there may be changed going forward and we will update you as soon as any are announced This scheme will run from the 1st September until the 31st March 2021.This scheme replaces the Temporary Wage Subsidy Scheme (TWSS) which ceases on 31 August 2020.


Eligible employers claiming TWSS in respect of eligible employees may continue to claim TWSS in respect of these employees for pay dates up to 31 August 2020. The following questions provide a summary of the key aspects of the new scheme and how it will operate;

When can I claim the EWSS for employees?

If on the TWSS from 1 September 2020.


What does the Scheme provide for?

The scheme has two elements:

• It provides a flat-rate subsidy based on the numbers of paid and eligible employees on the employer’s payroll; and

• It charges a reduced rate of employer PRSI of 0.5% on wages paid which are eligible for the subsidy payment.


Does the EWSS impact employee entitlements or the employment contract?

The scheme does not affect any legal obligations that the employer may have to their employee as regards any terms, conditions or employment entitlements.


How will the scheme be administered?

Like the TWSS it will be administered by Revenue on a “self-assessment” basis. Proof of eligibility will not be sought at the registration stage. Revenue will review eligibility in the future, based on risk criteria. Employers should ensure to retain their evidence/basis for entering and remaining in the scheme.


When and how will the subsidy be paid?

Unlike the TWSS the subsidy will be paid by credit transfer directly to the employer, once a month in arrears, as soon as practicable after the 14th of the following month (Return due Date).


What do employers require in order to be eligible?

Tax Clearance

Employers must possess a valid tax clearance certificate to enter the EWSS and maintain tax clearance for the duration of the scheme, provided all other conditions are met. Employers can check their current tax clearance status through ROS. Further information can be found at

https://www.revenue.ie/en/onlineservices/services/manage-your-record/apply-for-tax-clearance-online-using-etc.aspx

In addition, for the duration of the scheme, an employer must be able to demonstrate that:

• their business is expected to experience a 30% reduction in turnover or orders between 1 July and 31 December 2020 looking at the period as whole rather than on a monthly basis; and

• this disruption is caused by COVID-19.

This reduction in turnover/orders is relative to;

• the same period in 2019 where the business was in existence prior to 1 July 2019; or

• where the business commenced between 1 July and 1 November 2019, the date of commencement to 31 December 2019; or

• where a business commenced after 1 November 2019, the projected turnover or orders for 1 July 2020 to 31st December 2020.


Subsidies received are taxed on the employers, as part of their trading income, but are ignored in the calculation of the 30% reduction in turnover.


How does the Self-Assessment work?

Employers must undertake a review on the last day of every month (other than July 2020 and the final month of the scheme) to ensure that they continue to meet the above eligibility criteria.


When undertaking a review employers need to include all sources of trade income specifically including sales, donations, State Funding etc.

What do employers do if they no longer qualify?


They must deregister for EWSS through ROS with effect from the following day (that being the 1st of the month) and cease claiming the subsidy.

If an employer becomes aware prior to the end of the month that they will no longer meet the eligibility criteria (e.g. unexpected donation or grant received at the start of a month), they should deregister immediately and cease to claim subsidies.


Employers will not be required to repay subsidies that were correctly claimed prior to deregistration.


Can I reregister after being deemed ineligible?

If circumstances change and the employer is again eligible, they can reregister and claim from the date of reregistration.
It is not possible to backdate the claim to include the period of deregistration.


Who is an eligible employee?

Eligible employees include;

Employees who are on the payroll and in receipt of gross wages of between € 151.50 and € 1,462 per week during the period of the scheme (1 September 2020 to 31 March 2021).


There are no restrictions on taking on new employees or movement of employees under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) (TUPE) legislation, provided such recruitments/movements are undertaken for legitimate business purposes and not with the intention to maximise subsidy claims.


Certain categories of employees are specifically excluded in legislation, those being:

• Proprietary Directors. However, there may be exceptions for some proprietary directors, details of which will be provided in due course.

• Connected Parties who were not on the payroll and paid at any time between 1 July 2019 and 30 June 2020. (Connected parties include brothers, sisters, linear ancestors, linear descendants, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews of an individual and their spouse.)


A person is connected to a company if they alone or together with their connected parties can exercise or acquire control of more than 50% of the issued share capital or voting rights, the greater part of distributions, or the greater parts of assets distributed on winding up.

Additional employees for whom subsidy should not be claimed include:

• employees working in a business division or related group entity not expected to suffer a 30% reduction.

• employees employed otherwise than as part of a business e.g. domestic employees such as childminders, housekeepers, gardeners etc.


Safeguards will be included to minimise abuse.


What is the weekly subsidy rate?

The rate of weekly subsidy the employer will receive per paid eligible employee is as follows:

Employee Gross Weekly                                 Wages Subsidy Payable 

Less than €150.50                                               Nil

From €151.50 to €202.99                              €151.50

rom €203 to €1462                                            €203.00

More than €1462                                                 Nil

 

For pay periods other than weekly, gross weekly wage will be calculated by dividing the returned gross wage by the number of insurable weeks included (subject to maximum divisors set by the system).


Gross wage, as reported on the payroll submission, includes notional pay and is before deduction of items such as pensions and salary sacrifice.


It excludes any DEASP benefits which employees may have mandated to be paid to the employer (e.g. illness/maternity/adoptive, etc.). Such monies should continue to be included in non-taxable pay as normal and are ignored when calculating the amount of the subsidy to be paid.


Can employer’s claim monthly subsidy payments?

In order to provide monthly subsidy payments to employers, EWSS can only be claimed in respect of payroll submissions of at least a monthly pay frequency i.e. quarterly/yearly/biyearly/other claims will not be processed.


How does the Registration Process work?

A new registration process needs to be followed for EWSS.

Employers must file their payroll submissions electronically through Revenue Online Service (ROS).


Eligible employers will be able to register for EWSS through ROS from 18th August. The date of registration cannot be back dated prior to the date of application and does not need to be back dated if a claim will be submitted in respect of payments in July/August.


Employers will be required to declare that they are eligible for the Employment Wage Subsidy Scheme and that they agree to the Terms and Conditions of the scheme and are aware of the consequences of non-compliance.


Registration applications will only be processed if the employer is registered for PAYE/PRSI as an employer, has a bank account linked to that registration, and has tax clearance.


Where an employer files an EWSS payment submission without first registering for EWSS, it will be rejected in full.

As registration cannot be backdated, its imperative registration is undertaken prior to the first pay date in respect of which EWSS is being claimed.

How will the subsidy operate for payroll purposes?


EWSS will re-establish the normal requirement to operate PAYE and normal PRSI on all payments. This includes the regular deduction and remittance of income tax, USC and PRSI at the normal rates.


Employer PRSI will be reduced to 0.5% in respect of employees for whom a subsidy is payable.


Employers will continue to operate payroll as normal and report employer and employee PRSI deductions based on the employee’s appropriate existing PRSI classes.


The employer must include ‘EWSS’ as the payment type in the ‘Other Payments’ section on the payroll submission and input the digit zero or one cent as the amount of other payment made.


Employers should not include the EWSS ‘Other Payment’ details on the payslip they provide to the employee. Where an employer makes a submission to Revenue with ‘EWSS’ included in the other payment field for employees who are not eligible for a subsidy, a message will issue through ROS upon submission requesting that this does not occur in the future.


Such payslips will also not be eligible for the reduced rate of PRSI and will be excluded from the PRSI credit calculation. On receipt of an eligible EWSS payroll submission from a registered employer, Revenue will calculate the subsidy payable by reference to the gross wage, pay frequency and insurable weeks reported on the payslip.


If an employer does not have tax clearance on the return due date, their subsidy payment will not be processed and once they have obtained tax clearance, they will need to contact the National Employers Helpline to request that the refund issue.


Employers are required to make submissions to Revenue by the pay date. To avoid any delay in payment of subsidy to an employer or posting of the employer PRSI credit, submissions need to be made by the return filing date of the relevant month e.g. September pay dates need to be filed by 14 October to be included in the October payment. Any amendments or submission of EWSS payroll after the return due date will be subject to a review by Revenue which will unavoidably lead to a delay in payment.


How will the subsidy be processed by Revenue?

At the end of every month, Revenue will process the payroll submitted and post a statement into the ROS inbox of employers by the 5th of the following month, setting out the amount of subsidy due to be paid to the employer. This will allow time for necessary amendments to be made, prior to the return filing date.


After the return due date, the system will process the claim and make the payment into the designated bank account as soon as practicable thereafter.

How will the Reduced Employer PRSI rate of 0.5% be processed?


As employer’s PRSI in their payroll submission will be at a higher rate than the 0.5% available under the scheme, Revenue will calculate a PRSI ‘credit ’due to the employer by recalculating employer PRSI using the scheme rate of 0.5% (where employer PRSI returned is more than 0.5%) and subtracting this from employer PRSI due as reported in the submission.


On the 14th of the following month (Return due Date), Revenue will post the PRSI ‘credit ’ that is due and payable for that month to the employer’s monthly payroll return, reducing the overall payroll taxes balance due.


To avoid any delay in posting the employer PRSI credit, submissions need to be made by the return filing date of the relevant month e.g. September pay dates need to be filed by 14 October to be included in the October calculation. Any amendments or submission of EWSS payroll after the return due date will be subject to a review by Revenue which will unavoidably lead to a delay in the posting of the credit.


Can I claim subsidy for employees who were ineligible for the TWSS during July and August?

In recognition of the exclusion from TWSS of new entities, seasonal employees and new hires, EWSS eligible employers, in respect of eligible employees, can backdate a claim for EWSS to 1 July 2020 in certain limited circumstances as follows:

• The employer was not eligible for TWSS; or

• employees who were not eligible for TWSS. (Employees were excluded from the TWSS because their net wages exceeded the tapered amounts allowed under the scheme, are not eligible)

These will be dealt with as part of a ‘sweepback ’with payment made in September.


How to make claims for July/August?

• Before 5 September, employers will electronically provide required information including; employee name, PPSN, employment ID, payment frequency, insurable weeks, commencement date, etc., using a template which will be available on revenue.ie in late August,

• Revenue will upload this information and calculate the total subsidy due to be paid.

• The subsidy will be paid into the designated bank account as soon as practicable after 14 September.

• No additional submissions or amendments will be processed on or after 14 September in respect of July/August.

The reduced rate of employers PRSI of 0.5% is also applicable to eligible payments in July and August 2020. Revenue will calculate the difference between the employer PRSI returned and 0.5% and overnight on 14 September, will credit any excess.


Will compliance checks will be carried out?

To ensure compliance, Revenue will undertake assurance checks in relation to the scheme.


What records are required?

All records relating to the operation of the scheme must be retained by employers, specifically including those supporting the expectation that turnover or customer orders will reduce by the requisite 30%, together with details of the monthly reviews that must be undertaken.


What if an employee has two employers?

Some employees have more than one employment with more than one eligible employer.

In such instances, each employer makes its own claim (where appropriate) for the employee.


Where employees are included in more than one payroll by an employer (e.g. on a weekly payroll for wages and monthly payroll for bonuses), subsidy entitlement must be calculated by aggregating monies paid under both payrolls.


Where additional payments are being made for the same payment date whereby two payslips are being processed for the same pay date, these also must be aggregated when calculating subsidy entitlement.


Debt Warehousing

Under the Financial Provision (Covid-19) (No.2) Act 2020, debt associated with the COVID-19 crisis may be deferred or ‘warehoused’.

The scheme allows for the deferral of unpaid VAT and PAYE (Employers) debts arising from the COVID-19 crisis for a period of 12 months after a business resumes trading.


The debts will be addressed by way of a phased payment arrangement at a lower interest rate of 3% per annum which represent a significant reduction from the standard rate of 8% or 10% per annum depending on the particular tax owed.


The period covered by the debt warehousing scheme is the time during which the business was and is unable to trade due to the COVID-19 related restrictions and includes two months after the business re-commences trading.


The Act also introduced a reduced interest rate of 3% per annum to apply to tax debts that cannot be warehoused, i.e. older debts not associated with COVID-19.


The reduced rate is available across all tax types where the agreement is made by 30 September and applies from the date of the agreement.

Businesses with warehoused debts or debts covered by a Phased Payment Arrangement (PPA) can, provided all other conditions are met, participate in the EWSS. Further information on the above initiatives can be found at;

https://www.revenue.ie/en/corporate/communications/documents/debt-warehousingreduced-interest-measures.pdf


Revenue recommends that employers engage with these initiatives as soon as possible by making contact with the Collector General’s Division to ensure they have all returns filed and payment arrangements in place. Once this is done, tax clearance should be applied for through ROS.

This is required to facilitate registration for EWSS and timely receipt of subsidies.


Full details of the guidelines released are available on the revenue website;

https://www.revenue.ie/en/corporate/communications/documents/ewss-guidelines.pdf


FURTHER DETAILS ON THE UPDATE OR ABOUT OUR SERVICES MAY BE OBTAINED FROM:

JOHN BARRY/TARA DALY/ HUGH HEGARTY AT TEL: 01 8870690

Avoiding Refusal: Strengthening a High-Risk Employment Permit Application

By Tara Daly • April 28, 2026
One of the most challenging scenarios for employers is progressing an employment permit application that appears complete, but carries a high risk of refusal. In many cases, this risk only becomes apparent once a decision has been issued. We were recently engaged by a client in the healthcare support sector who had already begun preparing an application for a General Employment Permit for a specialist role. The situation The employer had: • Identified a suitable overseas candidate • Undertaken initial steps in the application process • Prepared the necessary documentation However, they sought a review before submission due to uncertainty around eligibility. What we identified On review, it became clear that the application, as drafted, was unlikely to succeed. The risks were not immediately obvious but included: • A job description that did not clearly demonstrate the level of skill required • Duties that overlapped with roles not typically eligible for a permit • Insufficient detail in the business case supporting the hire From experience, these types of issues frequently result in refusals, particularly where roles sit close to the margins of eligibility. Why this matters A refusal does not just mean a rejected application. It often results in: • Restarting the process from the beginning • Additional recruitment delays • Potential loss of the candidate In sectors already experiencing staffing pressures, this can have a significant operational impact. Our approach We worked with the employer to: • Refine and clarify the role profile to accurately reflect its responsibilities and requirements • Distinguish the role from non-eligible positions • Strengthen the supporting documentation to clearly demonstrate eligibility and business need. This required a detailed understanding of how similar roles are assessed in practice. The outcome Following revision, the application was submitted and approved on first submission. The employer avoided: • A likely refusal • Delays in onboarding • Disruption to service delivery Key takeaway for employers Applications are not assessed solely on whether documentation is present. They are assessed on whether the role, as presented, clearly meets the criteria. Where roles are borderline or nuanced, early intervention can significantly reduce the risk of refusal. If you’re planning an overseas hire or facing delays, we’re happy to talk it through. info@mssthehrpeople.ie | 01 887 0690
Securing a Critical Skills Employment Permit: When Timelines Start to Slip

Securing a Critical Skills Employment Permit: When Timelines Start to Slip

By Tara Daly • April 23, 2026
Irish employers are increasingly relying on international hiring to fill key roles, particularly in sectors experiencing acute skills shortages.

WRC Awards €142,984 in Unfair Dismissal Case Following Senior Executive Redundancy

April 9, 2026
WRC Reference: ADJ-00057077 / 11 th March 2026 A recent decision of the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) has highlighted the importance of fair procedures, genuine consultation, and meaningful engagement in redundancy processes, particularly where senior executives are involved. Background The Complainant was employed by the Respondent for over 24 years, beginning in 2000. Over the course of her career, she progressed to the senior role of Managing Director, EMEA GLT, with a base salary of €275,000, alongside bonus and equity participation. In mid-2024, the Complainant’s role was significantly altered following an internal restructuring. She alleged that this amounted to an effective demotion, with key responsibilities removed without consultation or warning. Shortly afterwards, the situation escalated. The Complainant was placed on sick leave and raised a formal grievance regarding the changes to her role. That grievance was not upheld, and the appeal outcome confirmed the employer’s position. In October 2024, the Complainant was informed that her role was at risk of redundancy. A consultation process followed, during which she was placed on garden leave. Despite raising concerns and requesting further clarity around her role and terms, her employment was ultimately terminated by reason of redundancy in November 2024. The Complainant subsequently brought a claim for unfair dismissal. WRC Findings The Respondent conceded at the hearing that the dismissal was unfair. The Adjudication Officer noted that the Complainant had been employed in a very senior position for over two decades and had progressed through multiple promotions, ultimately holding a Managing Director role. It was accepted that significant changes had been made to her responsibilities prior to the redundancy process, which formed part of the broader context leading to the breakdown in the employment relationship. While a redundancy process was carried out, the key issue before the WRC was the fairness of the overall dismissal. Given the Respondent’s concession, the WRC found that the Complainant had been unfairly dismissed. Decision The WRC upheld the complaint of unfair dismissal and awarded the Complainant €142,984 in compensation A separate complaint relating to notice was rejected on the basis that statutory notice had already been included in the termination payment. Key Takeaways for Employers This decision highlights several important points for employers, particularly in the context of senior-level restructurings: Role changes must be handled carefully, particularly where they may amount to demotion in practice. Consultation must be genuine and meaningful, even at executive level. Grievances should be addressed thoroughly and fairly before moving to redundancy. Redundancy processes must be clearly separated from performance or role disputes. Senior employees are entitled to the same procedural protections as all employees. Even where restructuring is commercially justified, employers must ensure that process and communication are properly managed to avoid unfair dismissal findings. Conclusion This case serves as a reminder that long service and seniority do not reduce the employer’s obligations under employment law. Where role changes, grievances, and redundancy processes overlap, employers must take particular care to ensure fairness at every stage. Failure to do so can result in significant compensation awards, as demonstrated by the €142,984 award made in this case. Tara Daly

WRC Awards €40,000 for Indirect Discrimination in Recruitment Process

April 9, 2026
ADJ-00042837 A recent decision from the Workplace Relations Commission highlights the risks for employers when setting qualification requirements that may disproportionately exclude certain groups. Background The Complainant, who is deaf and a native user of Irish Sign Language (ISL), applied for a role as an Advisor Deaf/Hard of Hearing with the National Council for Special Education (NCSE). Despite holding a PhD in Deaf Education and being a fluent ISL user, he was not shortlisted for an interview. The reason given was that he did not hold a formal qualification in ISL, which was listed as an essential requirement. The Complainant challenged this decision internally, arguing that requiring a formal ISL qualification was discriminatory, as many deaf individuals use ISL as their first language but do not hold academic qualifications in it. While the internal review upheld his complaint and accepted that his experience met the criteria, the recruitment process had already closed and no remedy was offered. The Complaint The Complainant brought a claim under the Employment Equality Acts, alleging indirect discrimination on the grounds of disability. He argued that: The requirement for a formal ISL qualification disproportionately disadvantaged deaf applicants. His practical fluency and expertise should have been sufficient. The employer could have assessed competence through alternative means, such as an interview. The Respondent maintained that the qualification requirement was necessary to ensure: Consistent standards. Teaching and advisory capability. Theoretical and pedagogical knowledge. WRC Findings The Adjudication Officer found in favour of the Complainant. It was held that the requirement for a formal ISL qualification, while neutral on its face, placed deaf applicants at a particular disadvantage and therefore constituted indirect discrimination. Importantly, the WRC found that: The Complainant had established a prima facie case of discrimination. The Respondent failed to objectively justify the requirement. The internal review had already accepted that the Complainant met the criteria. The failure to provide any remedy after upholding the internal complaint was a significant failing. Redress The WRC awarded €40,000 in compensation. This exceeded the usual €13,000 cap applicable to non-employees, with reference to EU law requiring compensation to be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. Key Takeaways for Employers This case provides several important lessons: Qualification requirements must be carefully considered. Even well-intentioned criteria can be discriminatory if they disproportionately exclude certain groups. Experience and practical competence may be valid alternatives. Employers should consider whether less restrictive measures could achieve the same objective. Internal processes must lead to meaningful outcomes. Upholding a complaint without offering a remedy may expose organisations to further liability. Objective justification must be robust. It is not enough to show that a requirement is desirable, it must be necessary and proportionate. This decision is a strong reminder that recruitment criteria must be inclusive and objectively justified. Employers should review job specifications carefully to ensure they do not unintentionally exclude qualified candidates, particularly where protected characteristics are concerned. If you require assistance or an audit of your recruitment processes or require representation at the WRC please do not hesitate to contact MSS The HR People. Phone: 018870690, Email: info@mssthehrpeople.ie , visit our website

WRC Awards €20,000 in Disability Discrimination Case Involving Reduction of Hours

By Tara Daly • April 9, 2026
WRC Reference: ADJ-00052352 / 9 th March 2026 A recent decision of the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), Nancy Doherty v Figary Water Sports Development Company Ltd highlights the risks for employers where changes to working arrangements impact an employee with a disability. Background The Complainant, Ms Nancy Doherty, was employed as a Marina Manager with the Respondent company since 2002. During her employment, Ms Doherty experienced a number of serious health issues, including multiple cancer diagnoses, and was undergoing ongoing treatment. She alleged that, following her return to work, her working arrangements were significantly altered. Her hours were reduced from full-time to two days per week and, ultimately, she was left with no working hours at all. She further claimed that she was effectively excluded from the workplace in December 2023. The Respondent denied that any discrimination had occurred, maintaining that any changes to working arrangements were either agreed or unrelated to the Complainant’s disability. A preliminary argument was also raised that elements of the claim fell outside the statutory time limits. WRC Findings The Adjudication Officer was satisfied that the key events in December 2023, when the Complainant’s remaining working days were removed and she was told not to attend work, brought the complaint within the relevant time limits. It was accepted that the Complainant had a disability. The focus therefore turned to whether she was treated less favourably than a comparable employee. The Complainant identified another individual, referred to as Ms B, who continued working. While the Respondent disputed her status, the WRC accepted that she carried out work and was paid, and therefore was a valid comparator. On that basis, the Adjudication Officer found that a prima facie case of discrimination had been established, shifting the burden of proof to the Respondent. However, the Respondent failed to rebut this. The WRC accepted that the Complainant was told not to attend work in December 2023 and noted that no steps were taken to clarify or reverse that position. The Adjudication Officer emphasised that it is the employer’s responsibility to address such situations. The absence of formal procedures, including a grievance process, was also a factor. In the absence of such structures, the risk of unresolved issues rests with the employer. While there was conflicting evidence regarding the earlier reduction in hours, the WRC found that this had been accepted at the time. The finding of discrimination instead related to the removal of all working hours and the Complainant’s exclusion from the workplace. Decision The WRC found in favour of the Complainant and awarded: €20,000 compensation for discrimination under the Employment Equality Acts. €300 compensation for failure to provide written terms and conditions of employment. The level of compensation was reduced to reflect the fact that the Respondent had continued to make payments to the Complainant for a period following the end of her employment. Key Takeaways for Employers This case highlights several important lessons: Exercise caution when changing working arrangements for employees with disabilities. Ensure clear and consistent communication around any workplace decisions. Act promptly to resolve misunderstandings, inaction can create legal exposure. Implement and maintain proper workplace procedures, including grievance policies. Comply with core employment law obligations, including providing written terms of employment. Even in the absence of intentional discrimination, poor communication and a lack of structure can lead to significant liability. If you require support navigating changes to terms and conditions or reasonable accommodations contact MSS The HR People at: info@mssthehrpeople.ie , Ph 018870690 or visit our website for further guidance.

WRC Awards €3,700 Following Constructive Dismissal and Breaches of Working Time and Terms of Employment Legislation

By Tara Daly • April 9, 2026
ADJ-00057280 A recent decision of the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) has resulted in an award of €3,700 to a former deli assistant who was found to have been constructively dismissed, while also succeeding in claims under the Organisation of Working Time Act and the Terms of Employment (Information) Act. Background The Complainant commenced employment in October 2023 as a deli assistant on a part-time basis, earning approximately €200 per week. While she initially worked full-time hours, she later transitioned to part-time work to accommodate her college studies. Issues arose in October 2024 when management instructed the Complainant to take her breaks in a public seating area rather than her usual location. The purpose of this instruction was to ensure she remained available to assist during busy periods. Shortly thereafter, the Complainant was issued with a formal written warning for allegedly failing to follow this instruction. The Complainant raised concerns regarding both the fairness of the disciplinary process and her statutory entitlement to uninterrupted rest breaks. She submitted these concerns verbally and in writing, including a formal “right to reply” communication. Despite this, the Respondent did not substantively engage with her concerns. The Complainant subsequently experienced a significant reduction in her working hours and ultimately resigned in December 2024, claiming she had no reasonable alternative. The Complaint The Complainant brought three claims to the WRC: Constructive dismissal under the Unfair Dismissals Acts. Failure to provide updated terms of employment. Breach of statutory rest break entitlements. She argued that the disciplinary process was fundamentally flawed, that she was denied fair procedures, and that she was effectively required to remain available during her breaks in breach of legislation. The Respondent’s Position The Respondent denied all claims. They argued that: The Complainant resigned voluntarily. She failed to utilise the formal grievance procedure before resigning. The disciplinary process was appropriate. Breaks were provided in line with statutory requirements. A valid contract of employment had been issued. Findings of the WRC Constructive Dismissal The Adjudication Officer found significant procedural failings in the disciplinary process, those being, the Complainant: Was not invited to a formal investigation meeting. Was not given an opportunity to respond before the warning was issued. Was denied fair process and natural justice. In addition, the Respondent’s requirement that the Complainant remain available during her breaks was found to be contrary to the Organisation of Working Time Act, which requires that rest breaks be uninterrupted. Importantly, the WRC noted that the Complainant raised her concerns on multiple occasions, both verbally and in writing. Despite this, the Respondent failed to meaningfully address or resolve the issues. Taking these factors together, the Adjudication Officer found that the Respondent’s conduct undermined the relationship of trust and confidence to such an extent that the Complainant was entitled to resign. The claim of constructive dismissal was therefore upheld. Award: €3,000 Terms of Employment The WRC found that the Respondent failed to provide an updated written statement of terms following the Complainant’s transition from full-time to part-time hours. This was held to be a breach of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act. Award: €200 Organisation of Working Time Act The Adjudication Officer found that the Respondent’s practice of requiring the Complainant to remain available during her breaks was inconsistent with statutory rest break requirements. Employees are entitled to uninterrupted rest periods, and any expectation to return to work during these breaks undermines that entitlement. Award: €500 Key Takeaways for Employers This case highlights several important considerations for employers: Rest breaks must be uninterrupted: Employees cannot be required to remain “on call” during statutory breaks. Disciplinary procedures must be fair: Employees must be informed of allegations, given an opportunity to respond, and allowed representation where appropriate. Engage with employee complaints: Failure to address grievances can significantly increase legal risk. Keep contracts up to date: Any material change to working hours or terms must be reflected in updated written documentation. Constructive dismissal risk is real: Even where an employee resigns, failures in process and engagement can lead to successful claims. If you require help navigating a disciplinary matter or require representation at the WRC please do not hesitate to contact MSS The HR People. Phone: 018870690, Email: info@mssthehrpeople.ie , visit our website

Labour Court Doubles Compensation to €104,000 in Unfair Dismissal Case Involving Overseas Email Access

By Tara Daly • April 9, 2026
ADJ-00045339 A recent decision involving Dublin Business School highlights how compensation awards can significantly increase on appeal, with the Labour Court more than doubling a Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) award in an unfair dismissal case. Background The employee, a lecturer, was dismissed in February 2023 following a disciplinary process which found him guilty of gross misconduct. The issue arose after he accessed his work email while visiting Iran, a country the employer had designated as “prohibited” for system access. The lecturer had travelled abroad to attend a family funeral. Despite being instructed not to access the system, the employer determined that doing so constituted a serious breach of policy and proceeded to dismiss him. Importantly, the employer later conceded, both at the WRC and on appeal, that the dismissal was unfair. WRC Decision: €53,000 Award At first instance, the WRC focused solely on redress, as liability was no longer in dispute. The Adjudication Officer considered: The complainant’s financial loss, including his earnings (which averaged approximately €91,000 due to additional work beyond his base salary). His efforts to mitigate loss, including job applications and periods of part-time work. Personal circumstances affecting his ability to secure new employment, including bereavement and family difficulties. The impact of the dismissal on his reputation within a relatively small professional community. While acknowledging the significant impact of the dismissal, the WRC found that the employee’s mitigation efforts were not fully sufficient. Taking all factors into account, compensation of €53,000 was awarded. Labour Court Appeal: Award Increased to €104,000 The lecturer appealed the adequacy of the compensation to the Labour Court. On appeal, the Court reassessed: The scale and duration of financial loss. The employee’s evidence that he had made over 100 job applications. The reputational damage arising from the dismissal. The fact that he had only secured lower-paid, temporary lecturing roles since his dismissal. The Court also noted: No evidence was presented by the employer to justify the dismissal. No persuasive evidence that the employee contributed to his dismissal. While mitigation efforts were made, they were not considered fully comprehensive. Based on an annual income of approximately €91,000, the Court noted that the statutory maximum award could exceed €180,000. Balancing all factors, the Labour Court concluded that a €104,000 award was “just and equitable”, effectively doubling the WRC award. Key Takeaways for Employers This case serves as an important reminder of several key principles: 1. Even admitted unfair dismissals can carry escalating financial risk. An initial award may not be the final exposure, appeals can significantly increase compensation. 2. Gross misconduct thresholds must be carefully assessed. Dismissal for a single act, particularly in unusual or sensitive personal circumstances, may not always be proportionate. 3. Mitigation arguments matter, but are not decisive. While employees must make reasonable efforts to find work, imperfect mitigation will not eliminate employer liability. 4. Reputation damage can influence compensation. Particularly in niche sectors, dismissal can have longer-term career consequences which tribunals will consider. 5. Evidence at the appeal stage is critical. The absence of employer evidence at Labour Court level weakened the respondent’s position significantly. If you require help navigating a disciplinary matter or require representation at the WRC or Labour Court please do not hesitate to contact MSS The HR People. Phone: 018870690, Email: info@mssthehrpeople.ie , visit our website

WRC Awards €5,000 in Disability Discrimination and Victimisation Case

By Tara Daly • April 9, 2026
WRC Reference: ADJ-00060438 / 12 th March 2026 A recent decision of the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) highlights the risks for employers in how they respond when an employee raises a potential mental health issue in the workplace. Background The Complainant was employed as an Assistant Manager in a restaurant from December 2023. She alleged that she was subjected to discrimination, harassment, victimisation and ultimately a discriminatory dismissal on the grounds of disability. In particular, she claimed that after disclosing that she was experiencing depression, her treatment at work deteriorated rapidly, ultimately leading to the end of her employment. The Respondent denied any discrimination, maintaining that they were not aware of any disability and that the employment relationship broke down due to performance concerns and the Complainant’s attitude. WRC Findings The Adjudication Officer examined the sequence of events leading to the termination of employment, with particular focus on a meeting which took place at the end of April 2025. It was accepted that prior to this point, the Complainant had been a reliable and valued employee. However, concerns arose regarding her performance in the weeks leading up to this meeting. During this discussion, the Complainant raised issues regarding her mental health. While there was conflicting evidence as to the extent of the disclosure, the Adjudication Officer found, on balance, that the Complainant had informed her employer that she was experiencing depression. The WRC was satisfied that this disclosure was not meaningfully engaged with by the Respondent. Instead, within a matter of days, the Complainant was told that the role may not suit her and that she should consider alternative employment. The Adjudication Officer found that the situation escalated quickly following this disclosure. The Complainant was subjected to criticism and negative treatment, was removed from the roster, and ultimately ceased attending work. On this basis, the WRC found that the Complainant had established a prima facie case of discrimination, which the Respondent failed to rebut. The Adjudication Officer concluded that the Complainant had been constructively dismissed in circumstances amounting to discrimination, and had also been subjected to victimisation. Decision The WRC found the complaints to be well founded and awarded:  €2,500 compensation for discriminatory dismissal. €2,500 compensation for victimisation. Key Takeaways for Employers This case highlights a number of important considerations for employers: Take disclosures of mental health issues seriously, even where they are informal or lack detailed medical evidence. Engage appropriately and sensitively with employees who raise potential health concerns. Avoid reacting negatively or prematurely following such disclosures. Ensure that performance management processes remain fair and objective. Be aware that a rapid deterioration in treatment following a disclosure may give rise to an inference of discrimination. While the level of compensation in this case was relatively modest, the decision underscores the legal risks where employers fail to appropriately respond to potential disabilities in the workplace. If you need help navigating medical or disability disclosures contact MSS The HR People at: info@mssthehrpeople.ie , Ph 018870690 or visit our website for further guidance.

WRC Awards €40,000 in Unfair Dismissal Case Involving Allegations of False Evidence

By Tara Daly • April 9, 2026
WRC Reference: ADJ-00057560 / 11 th March 2026 A recent decision of the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) highlights the importance of fair procedures, independent decision-making, and the risks for employers where disciplinary processes become compromised. Background The Complainant, a Deli Manager, was dismissed following allegations that she had given false evidence during a previous WRC hearing. The employer relied on this allegation as gross misconduct and proceeded to investigate and terminate her employment. The employee denied the allegations and argued that the decision to dismiss her was unfair, both in terms of process and outcome. WRC Findings The WRC found that the disciplinary process was significantly flawed from the outset. The investigation lacked independence, with concerns raised regarding the involvement of individuals closely connected to the business. This undermined the fairness and objectivity of the process. The Adjudication Officer also noted that the employee was not provided with full details of the allegations in advance and was not given a proper opportunity to respond during the process. A key issue in the case was that the outcome of the disciplinary process appeared to have been decided in advance. The dismissal letter had effectively been prepared before the process had concluded, indicating that the decision was predetermined. The WRC also criticised the absence of a meaningful appeal process following the dismissal. Importantly, the Adjudication Officer considered that the dismissal arose in circumstances where the employee had previously given evidence at a WRC hearing. Employees are legally protected when participating in such proceedings, and this was a relevant factor in the overall assessment. The WRC concluded that the process fell short of the standards required under fair procedures and natural justice. Decision The WRC upheld the complaint of unfair dismissal and awarded the Complainant: €40,000 compensation Reinstatement was not considered appropriate given the breakdown in trust between the parties. Key Takeaways for Employers This case reinforces several important lessons for employers: Disciplinary investigations must be independent and properly structured. Employees must be given clear notice of allegations and a fair chance to respond. Outcomes should never be decided in advance of a hearing. A genuine appeal process is essential. Employees are protected when giving evidence in legal proceedings. Even where an employer believes misconduct has occurred, failing to follow fair procedures can render a dismissal both procedurally and substantively unfair. This decision is a strong reminder that fair process is not optional. Where investigations are rushed, biased, or predetermined, employers expose themselves to significant legal and financial risk. In this case, those failures resulted in a €40,000 award for unfair dismissal. If you need help navigating an investigation or disciplinary process contact MSS The HR People at: info@mssthehrpeople.ie , Ph 018870690 or visit our website for further guidance.
WRC Rejects Whistleblowing Penalisation Claim

WRC Rejects Whistleblowing Penalisation Claim

By Tara Daly • March 4, 2026
The WRC rejected a claim brought under the Protected Disclosures legislation by an employee who alleged that he had been penalised after raising workplace concerns.