Workplace Bullying, Harassment and Sexual Harassment Claims Are Rising

May 7, 2026

In recent months at MSS The HR People, we are seeing a sharp increase in complaints relating to bullying, harassment, and sexual harassment across a range of industries. What is notable is not just the volume, but the complexity and escalation of these cases. Issues that may once have been addressed informally are now progressing quickly to formal complaints, external investigations, and claims before the Workplace Relations Commission. For employers, this is no longer just a people issue. It is a legal, reputational, and operational risk that requires a proactive response.


Where This Sits in Irish Employment Law


Employers in Ireland have clear obligations under both legislation and Codes of Practice to prevent and address inappropriate workplace behaviour. The core framework includes the Employment Equality Acts 1998–2015 and the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005, alongside the Code of Practice for Employers and Employees on the Prevention and Resolution of Bullying at Work 2020 and the IHREC Code of Practice on Sexual Harassment and Harassment at Work 2022.


Taken together, these do not just require employers to react to complaints. They place an obligation on companies to take reasonable steps to prevent bullying and harassment, ensure employees know how to raise concerns, and respond appropriately where issues arise.


From a compliance perspective, it is not enough to have a policy sitting in a handbook. Employers are expected to demonstrate that policies are understood, implemented, and actively supported in practice.


What We Are Seeing in Practice


Across the cases coming through MSS, there are some consistent patterns emerging.


Managers are often unsure how to respond when an issue is first raised, which leads to delays or missed opportunities for early intervention. Informal concerns are allowed to drift until positions become entrenched and a formal complaint becomes inevitable.


We are also seeing policies that are technically compliant but not embedded.


Employees are unclear on how to raise issues, and nominated or contact persons are unsure of the boundaries of their role. The gap between what is written down and what actually happens on the ground is where risk begins to build. In many of these situations, the issue is not deliberate misconduct by the company. It is a lack of clarity, confidence, and consistency in how situations are handled.


Why Refresher Training Is Now Critical


A once-off Dignity at Work session delivered several years ago is no longer sufficient in the current environment. Employee awareness has increased significantly, expectations around workplace behaviour have evolved, and the threshold for escalating concerns is lower than it was even a few years ago. Against that backdrop, companies need to be confident that their managers and employees understand not just the policy, but how it applies in real situations. Refresher training plays a key role here. It ensures that managers know how to respond when an issue is raised, that employees can recognise inappropriate behaviour early, and that nominated or contact persons are equipped to handle disclosures appropriately. It also demonstrates, from a legal perspective, that the company has taken reasonable and proactive steps to prevent issues arising.


The Risk of Doing Nothing


Where training is outdated or has not been delivered, the exposure for employers increases significantly.


Complaints are more likely to escalate quickly into formal processes, and there is greater scrutiny on how the company responded at the earliest stages.


In addition to this, employers also need to be mindful of the potential for personal injury claims arising from workplace bullying and harassment. Where an employee suffers stress, anxiety, or other recognised injury linked to their experience at work, claims are typically brought against the employer rather than the individual involved. The focus in those cases is on whether the company took reasonable steps to prevent the behaviour and to respond appropriately when concerns were raised. In practice, one of the first areas scrutinised is what preventative measures were in place, including whether relevant Dignity at Work training had been delivered and refreshed.


From a risk management perspective, training is not just a compliance exercise, it is a key part of an employer’s first line of defence.


Our Dignity at Work Training


At MSS The HR People, our Dignity at Work training is designed around the reality of the cases we are seeing every day, not just theory. Our half day session focuses on giving participants a clear understanding of what constitutes bullying, harassment, and sexual harassment in practice, how issues typically arise in the workplace, and how to respond appropriately at an early stage. The emphasis is on practical application, so that managers and employees leave with confidence in how to handle real situations.


We also deliver dedicated training for nominated and contact persons, which goes further into the responsibilities of the role, how to handle disclosures, and how to support employees while maintaining appropriate boundaries and neutrality. Across both sessions, the focus is on clarity, consistency, and confidence, ensuring that your company is not just compliant on paper, but equipped in practice.


Why This Matters Now


The increase in complaints we are seeing is not a short-term trend. It reflects a broader shift in workplace expectations and awareness. Companies that invest in training and early intervention are in a far stronger position to address issues before they escalate into formal complaints or external claims. Those that do not are more likely to find themselves dealing with complex, time-consuming, and high-risk situations.


Talk to Us


If it has been some time since your last Dignity at Work training, or if you are unsure how confident your team would be in handling a complaint today, it is worth taking a step back and reviewing your approach.


At MSS The HR People, we can support you with the delivery of Dignity at Work training, training for nominated and contact persons, and a review of your current policies and processes to ensure they are aligned with current expectations and best practice. Feel free to get in touch by phone, email or check out our Dignity at Work training here.



Amy Vickers


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
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.

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