Protection of Employees (Fixed Term Work) Act 2003
November 12, 2018
This legislation came into effect on 14th July 2003 and is intended to ensure that workers on fixed term contracts will not be treated less favourably than a comparable permanent worker.
Who is covered?
Any person on a fixed term contract (VETCH) but does not include an agency person working with a client, apprentices, trainee Guard or nursing or members of the Defense Forces.
What is a Fixed Term Contract Employee?
Any person under a contract to an employer where the end of the contract is determined by an objective condition - that is -
- Expiry of a specified period between a specified date
- Expiry of a specified purpose
- The achievement of a specific event
To what does it Apply?
Contract employees are entitled to be treated no less favourably than a comparable permanent worker in relation to all terms and conditions of employment. Except, in the case of a contract worker working less than 20% of the time of a comparable permanent worker, in relation to pensions.
What is a comparable permanent Worker?
A permanent employee not on a fixed contract is a comparable worker if -
- Employed by the same associated employer (subject to 1,2,3 below)
- Is an employee specified in a collective agreement which applies to the contract employee
- Employed in the same industry or sector (subject to 1,2,3 below)
In the case of a) and c) above one of the conditions must apply.
- Both employees perform the same work under similar conditions or are interchangeable.
- Work is of the same or similar nature with any differences being insignificant
- Work is equal to or greater to a comparable permanent employee.
When can a Contract Employee be treated less favourably?
Employers may treat contract employees less favourably where they can prove objective grounds for such. An objective ground would be where the different treatment can be justified in that the difference in treatment does not relate to the status of the employee and is for the purpose of achieving a legitimate objective and is necessary to achieve that objective.
Pension - Please note as stated above where the contract employee worked 20% of the comparable employees time, this would be an objective reason for not applying pensions.
Entitlements based on hours worked
Where benefit is base don hours worked then a contract employee would be entitled to these benefits on a pro rata basis where they work lesser hours.
Can we renew Fixed Term Contracts?
Employers may renew fixed term contracts subject to below.
The employer must do so in writing no later than the date of renewal and must state the objective grounds for renewing the contract and the reason why no indefinite duration contract was offered.
FTC's commencing after 14th July 2003
Where a contract employee has been employed on two or more continuous fixed term contracts then the average duration may not exceed four years except where an objective ground is presented.
FTC's commencing before 14th July 2003
Where fixed term contract has been in existence for up to three years occurring before or after the date, the contract may be renewed for maximum of one year with the average duration not exceeding four years.
Employer Obligations
Employers must notify contract employees of permanent vacancies arising and also of training opportunities insofar as it is practical for contract employees to participate in them.
Employers should, insofar as is practicable, advise employee representatives as to fixed term contract workers in the undertaking.
Disputes
When an employee has a dispute with an employer regarding their entitlement on this legislation they may refer the matter to the Rights Commissioner. The Rights Commissioner may;
- Declare the complaint was or was not well founded
- Require the employer to comply with the act
- Require the employer to reinstate or reengage the employee, (including on a contract of indefinite duration)
- Order compensation not exceeding two years remuneration.
- Appeals of a Rights Commissioner must be made within six weeks of communication to the Labour Court. Where the decision has not been implemented the employee may refer it to the Labour Court within six weeks of communication. In such cases the employer is precluded from attending the hearing or producing any new evidence to the Labour Court.
Appeals of the Labour Court are to the High Court whose decision shall be final and conclusive.
Irish employers are increasingly turning to international hiring as a solution to ongoing skills shortages. This trend is particularly evident in sectors where local talent is limited and demand continues to grow. Why employers are looking overseas Common drivers include: • Difficulty filling specialist roles locally • Business expansion and growth • Increased competition for talent International hiring can provide access to a wider talent pool and support long-term workforce planning. The challenge While the opportunity is clear, the employment permit process can be complex. Employers often underestimate: • The level of detail required in applications • The importance of aligning with eligibility criteria • The potential for delays or refusals Where the process is not managed properly, the impact can be significant. Roles remain open for longer, business plans are affected, and onboarding timelines move further out than expected. Getting it right A structured and informed approach is essential. This includes: • Understanding the appropriate permit type • Ensuring the role meets eligibility requirements • Preparing a clear and robust application Where employers take the time to position the role properly and support the application with strong documentation, the process is far more likely to run smoothly. Key takeaway for employers International hiring can be a highly effective solution, but only where the permit process is managed correctly. Approached properly, it enables businesses to secure the talent they need to grow and succeed with greater certainty and less disruption. If you would like advice or support with the employment permit process, our team would be happy to assist. info@mssthehrpeople.ie | 01 887 0690
A common approach we encounter is employers submitting an employment permit application and waiting to see what happens. While understandable, this approach carries significant risk. Why this approach falls short Employment permit applications are not a simple box-ticking exercise. Each application is assessed based on: • Eligibility • Justification • Alignment with current criteria If any of these elements are unclear or insufficient, the application may be delayed or refused. The impact of getting it wrong Where an application is unsuccessful: • Timelines are extended • Recruitment plans are disrupted • Candidates may withdraw In a competitive hiring market, these delays can have a real impact on the business. A role can remain unfilled for longer than expected, existing teams can come under pressure, and a strong candidate may choose another opportunity. A better approach Employers should approach permit applications as a structured process, focusing on: • Clear alignment with eligibility criteria • Strong and accurate role definition • Comprehensive supporting rationale It is far more effective to identify and address risk areas before submission than to deal with the consequences of delay or refusal later. Key takeaway for employers Submitting an application without fully assessing the risks can lead to avoidable delays. A well-prepared application significantly improves the likelihood of a successful outcome and gives the employer greater confidence throughout the process. If you’re planning an overseas hire or facing delays, we’re happy to talk it through. info@mssthehrpeople.ie | 01 887 0690
A recent WRC decision is a very important reminder to employers that long running “specific purpose” and fixed term arrangements can create significant risk
Increase in complaints relating to bullying, harassment, and sexual harassment and the complexity and escalation of these cases.
Pregnancy loss is a deeply personal experience. For employers, these situations can be equally challenging because of the uncertainty around it.
significant shift in workplace health trends, with psychological illness now the most common cause of income protection claims in Ireland.
Delays in employment permit applications are a frequent frustration for employers. Many assume the issue lies with processing times or administrative backlogs. In reality, the most common cause of delay is something else entirely. The real issue: misalignment The number one reason applications are delayed is misalignment with the eligibility criteria. This can include: • Roles that are not clearly defined • Job descriptions that do not match the required skill level • Weak or generic supporting information On the surface, an application may appear complete. However, if it does not clearly demonstrate eligibility, it is likely to encounter delays or queries. Why this happens Employers often approach the process as an administrative task. In practice, each application is assessed on its merits, and clarity is critical. How to avoid delays To reduce the risk of delay: • Ensure the role clearly meets eligibility requirements • Align job descriptions with the actual duties and level of the role • Provide strong, specific supporting information It is also important to review the application from the perspective of the decision-maker. If the application leaves room for doubt, it is far more likely to be delayed while clarification is sought. Key takeaway for employers Employment permits are not delayed because of missing forms. They are delayed because the application does not clearly meet the criteria. Understanding how your application will be assessed is essential, particularly where timelines are already under pressure and the business needs certainty around a key hire. If you’re planning an overseas hire or facing delays, we’re happy to talk it through. info@mssthehrpeople.ie | 01 887 0690
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
Irish employers are increasingly relying on international hiring to fill key roles, particularly in sectors experiencing acute skills shortages.
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
