The EU Commission Guidelines on Prohibited AI Practices

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

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