Understanding HR Advice: What It Is and How We Support Our Clients

May 1, 2025

At MSS The HR People, we often get asked, “What exactly is HR advice?” It’s a great question — and one that cuts right to the heart of what we do every day for our clients.


What Is HR Advice?


HR advice is professional guidance provided to employers and managers on how to manage people in the workplace.


Whether you run a small business with a handful of employees or are a scaling SME with growing staffing needs, the right HR support can help you stay compliant, avoid costly mistakes, and build a high-performing team.



In this blog, we’ll break down what HR employer advice actually is, how to know when you need it, and what your options are for getting the right professional HR support - without hiring a full-time HR manager.


It spans everything from recruitment and onboarding to performance management, employee relations, and employment law compliance. Good HR advice helps businesses stay compliant, make informed decisions, and avoid costly pitfalls.


But more than that — great HR advice is practical, proactive, and tailored to your business needs.


Types of HR Advice We Offer


At MSS The HR People, we support clients with a broad range of HR issues. These include:


  • Employee Relations – Managing grievances, disciplinaries, investigations, or conflict resolution.
  • Performance & Conduct – Supporting managers with underperformance, absenteeism, or behavioural issues.
  • Contracts & Policies – Drafting or reviewing contracts, handbooks, and HR policies to ensure legal compliance.
  • HR Compliance – Advising on employment law updates and how to implement them in your business.
  • Probation & Onboarding – Helping clients manage probation periods effectively and set new hires up for success.
  • Redundancy & Restructuring – Providing guidance through challenging workforce changes.
  • Everyday Queries – Whether it’s questions on annual leave entitlements, sick pay, or flexible working, no query is too small.

What Do Clients Typically Contact Us For?


Clients contact us when they:


  • Need a second opinion or a clear interpretation of employment legislation.
  • Are unsure how to approach a difficult conversation or situation.
  • Want to ensure their HR practices are fair, consistent, and legally compliant.
  • Are looking to reduce HR risk while improving employee engagement and culture.
  • Have already worked out an approach and just want quick validation or a sounding board before taking action.
  • Simply want quick, professional HR advice on tap.

Why Is HR Advice Important?


Irish employment legislation is constantly evolving - with updates to minimum wage, statutory sick pay entitlements, and gender pay gap reporting introduced so far this year – and it’s only April!


Business owners are expected to keep up with these changes, ensure compliance, and handle any workplace issues appropriately.


Getting it wrong can be costly. A poorly handled disciplinary, a missing contract, or a misstep during a redundancy process can result in:


  • WRC (Workplace Relations Commission) complaints
  • Penalties or fines
  • Damaged reputation
  • Low staff morale or high turnover


HR advice ensures you don’t fall into these traps. Instead, it gives you the confidence to act decisively and fairly - whether you’re growing your team or managing a tough issue.


How Do I Know If I Need HR Advice?


Here are some of the most common signs that your business needs HR support:


1. You're Hiring or Growing Your Team


Bringing on employees is a big step for any business. It’s important to have compliant employment contracts, solid onboarding processes, and clear expectations. If you're unsure where to start or want to do things right from the get-go, expert HR advice can set you up for success.


2. You Don’t Have Written HR Policies


All employers should have clear policies in place such as an employee handbook, disciplinary procedure, grievance policy, absence management, and remote working guidelines. If you don’t have these in writing (or haven’t updated them in years), it’s time to get professional help.


3. You're Dealing with a Staff Issue


If you're facing challenges like persistent absenteeism, underperformance, or conflict between employees, it can be difficult to know how to handle it correctly. HR consultants can guide you through fair processes, help you document everything, and reduce your legal risk.


4. You Want to Avoid a WRC Complaint


If you’ve had a close call - or just want to make sure you're doing everything by the book - getting HR advice is a proactive way to protect your business and reduce the chance of ending up in front of the WRC.

Not all HR support is created equal however, so it’s important to work with a provider who delivers straightforward, practical advice tailored to your business size and sector.


The best HR Advice providers take a proactive (not just reactive) approach, providing practical tools like compliant templates, letters, and policies, along with training or coaching for managers when needed. Depending on your needs and budget, there are several ways to access HR support.


  • One-off HR advice is ideal if you're dealing with a specific issue, such as a staff dispute or restructure, and need expert guidance.
  • An HR health check or audit is a smart starting point if you're unsure about compliance, offering a full review of your contracts, policies, and procedures with a clear action plan.
  • For ongoing peace of mind, many businesses opt for outsourced HR support, giving them access to expert advice without the cost of hiring in-house. Retained HR consultancy offers regular, tailored support for businesses that are growing or managing complex employee relations on an ongoing basis.


How to Get Started


Start by assessing your current situation. Do you need help with a one-off issue, like a disciplinary meeting? Or are you looking for ongoing HR support for your business?


Make a list of your concerns: lack of policies, recruitment headaches, managing performance, or dealing with absence or sick leave. The more clarity you have, the more focused your consultant’s advice can be.


Ready to Take the Headache Out of HR?


As we have identified, getting HR advice isn’t just about avoiding fines - it’s about creating a better place to work, retaining great talent, and freeing you up to focus on growing your business.


At MSS – The HR People, we offer expert HR support for employers that’s clear, compliant, and commercial. From one-off consultations to fully outsourced solutions, we’re here to help you get HR right.


Ready to get started or just want to have a quick chat about your HR challenges?


Contact us today to arrange a free discovery call.


Whether you’re an SME owner, a manager navigating a tricky staff issue, or an organisation looking to strengthen your HR framework, MSS The HR People is here to help.


WRC awards €15,000 after employee kept on “specific purpose” contract for 10 years

WRC awards €15,000 after employee kept on “specific purpose” contract for 10 years

By Amy Vickers • May 7, 2026
A recent WRC decision is a very important reminder to employers that long running “specific purpose” and fixed term arrangements can create significant risk
Workplace Bullying, Harassment and Sexual Harassment Claims Are Rising

Workplace Bullying, Harassment and Sexual Harassment Claims Are Rising

By Amy Vickers • May 7, 2026
Increase in complaints relating to bullying, harassment, and sexual harassment and the complexity and escalation of these cases.
Supporting Employees Through Pregnancy Loss

Supporting Employees Through Pregnancy Loss

By Amy Vickers • May 7, 2026
Pregnancy loss is a deeply personal experience. For employers, these situations can be equally challenging because of the uncertainty around it.
Psychological Illness Now the Leading Cause of Income Protection Claims in Ireland

Psychological Illness Now the Leading Cause of Income Protection Claims in Ireland

By Amy Vickers • May 7, 2026
significant shift in workplace health trends, with psychological illness now the most common cause of income protection claims in Ireland.

Why Employment Permits Get Delayed in Ireland and How to Avoid It

By Tara Daly • May 5, 2026
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

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.