Latest news with #WorkplaceRelationsCommission
Irish Examiner
a day ago
- Business
- Irish Examiner
Thousands of companies must publish gender pay gap in their organisations
The landscape of gender pay gap reporting in Ireland undergoes a significant transformation, with new obligations on companies beginning this week. Larger organisations in Ireland have been reporting their gender pay gaps (GPG) since 2022. Thousands of additional organisations - those with 50 or more employees - are now required to publish their GPG data for the first time. With the EU Pay Transparency Directive due to be transposed into Irish Law in June 2026, gender pay gap reporting is the first step in supporting organisations on the journey to pay parity and equitable pay practice. For Irish businesses, leveraging gender pay gap reporting can be a powerful opportunity to drive long-term organisational success. Strategic thinking can support employee retention when we need to optimise the current workforce to drive performance, and to promote a strong employer brand to attract the talent to meet strategic workforce planning needs. The Imperative of Getting it Right For the newly in-scope organisations, the initial focus will naturally be on ensuring accurate data collection and calculation. This can be complex, involving meticulous attention to definitions of "pay" and "hours worked," and careful categorisation of employees across pay quartiles. The pitfalls of getting it wrong are significant: Reputational Damage: In today's transparent world, a poorly presented or inaccurate report can severely damage your employer brand. Publicly available data means scrutiny from current and prospective employees, clients/customers, and even investors. A perception of pay inequality can quickly erode trust and make it harder to attract top talent. Talented individuals, particularly women, may look to organisations that demonstrate a genuine commitment to equity. Internal Discontent: Employees are increasingly aware of pay transparency. If your report highlights significant gaps without a clear, credible explanation and actionable plan, it can lead to demotivation, decreased morale, and increased staff turnover. There is a heightened risk of increased internal complaints around pay and bonus comparisons, how salary bands are graded, why colleagues in similar roles are paid more/less and referrals for equal pay and discrimination claims. Legal Scrutiny: While direct financial penalties for non-compliance are not yet in place in Ireland, the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), the Circuit Court and the High Court can order an employer to take specific action to comply with the legislation. Irish data suggests average GPG was 12.6% in 2022 reducing to 11.2% in 2023. With the upcoming EU Pay Transparency Directive, organisations with an unexplained GPG of greater than 5% will have to engage in joint pay assessments where employers must justify the detailed rationale of their pay structures. Leveraging Strategic Opportunities The process of gender pay gap reporting forces organisations to scrutinise their talent management strategies, fostering genuine strategic thinking. Why are women concentrated in lower-paid roles? Are there sufficient pathways for career progression for female employees? Are unconscious biases at play in your recruitment or promotion processes? Are men taking family related leave? These are critical questions that, when addressed, can lead to fundamental improvements in your talent management strategies. Proactively identifying and addressing gender pay gaps demonstrate a strong employer brand with a tangible commitment to equality. This resonates deeply with employees, who are increasingly valuing workplaces that align with their personal values. When employees feel equitably compensated, they are more engaged, more productive, and more likely to stay with your organisation. This reduces recruitment costs and preserves invaluable institutional knowledge. This is significant in the context of Adare's HR Barometer survey which reported anticipated turnover in 2025 at 12.2% and an average cost of €10,125 per employee. In a competitive market for talent, being known as an organisation that champions equality and fairness is a powerful differentiator. It makes you more attractive to a diverse pool of candidates leading to a more innovative and representative workforce, crucial for navigating complex business challenges and fostering growth. Furthermore, for organisations engaging in tenders or seeking investment, a strong GPG report can be a compelling testament to your commitment to ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) principles. Looking Ahead: From Snapshot to Solution The June snapshot is just that - a snapshot. The real work begins after the numbers are published. Organisations must not only explain their gaps but also articulate clear, measurable actions they intend to take to reduce them. This might involve reviewing policies, enhancing leadership development programmes for women, supporting women to actively engage in the workforce during menopause, implementing flexible working solutions, or tackling unconscious bias through comprehensive training. Gender pay gap reporting is not just a compliance requirement; it is a strategic opportunity for organisations to enhance their talent management strategies, build a strong employer brand, improve employee engagement and retention, foster a diverse and inclusive workplace, and prepare for future regulations. By embracing transparency and taking proactive steps to address the gender pay gap, organisations can unlock significant benefits and drive long-term success. The time to act is now.
Irish Times
3 days ago
- General
- Irish Times
Biochemist on special purpose contract with Children's Health Ireland loses unfair dismissal claim
A biochemist who was employed for 19 months at Children's Health Ireland (CHI) , and was accused of seeking to leverage a grievance procedure to obtain a full-time job, has lost her claim for unfair dismissal. Representing herself at the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), Mary Ann Healy said she believed her complaint against her line manager prompted her dismissal. She said she suffered from a lot of anxiety due to the handling of her complaint in which she alleged she was humiliated by the manager. . A process of mediation was established between the two employees in an attempt to resolve the issue, but this was unsuccessful. The complaint was not upheld after an internal review process. READ MORE Ms Healy appealed, but her employment at CHI had finished by the time the appeal was considered. It was rejected on that basis. Ms Healy told WRC adjudication officer Valerie Murtagh she did not believe the specified purpose contract she had been offered was genuine. She said the purpose was supposed to be providing cover for an employee seconded to another role but she had never been told who that person was. She said the recruitment process was arduous and suggested the pre-employment checks were so demanding that the experience had 'all the hallmarks' of being geared towards a permanent contract. Instead, on June 17th, 2024, about 18 months into working with the organisation, she received a message from the HR department at CHI saying the purpose of her 'specified purpose contract' has 'come to an end'. She was given four weeks' notice. Ms Healy said it was only when she was told her contract had ceased that she was informed she had been backfilling for someone who was returning. Ms Healy, who was herself the subject of a complaint by an agency worker who provided some of her training, said she believed she was dismissed because of her complaint, adding that CHI sought to avoid acknowledging this by claiming her contract was up. In its evidence to the commission, CHI, represented by Ibec, said Ms Healy was provided with a specified purpose contract. CHI's lawyers submitted that Ms Healy wanted an apology from her manager in front of her colleagues, a permanent contract and a pay increase to address her complaint. In a decision in the case, Ms Murtagh said she was satisfied documentation provided by CHI established that another employee, whose name was not published, had returned to the post immediately after Ms Healy departed the role. Based on this and other documentation supplied, she found the claim of unfair dismissal was not well-founded. She similarly rejected claims made under the Organisation of Working Time Act and the Protection of employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003.
Irish Daily Mirror
4 days ago
- Business
- Irish Daily Mirror
€12k compensation for mum not allowed return to role held before maternity leave
A Monaghan-based renewable energy firm has been ordered to pay over €12,000 to a former employee who was not allowed to return to the role she held prior to going on maternity leave. The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) ruled that Eurotech Renewables Limited of Castleblayney, Co Monaghan has discriminated against former worker, Leanne McGuinness, on grounds of family status. Ms McGuinness, who joined the company in February 2020, claimed she was not allowed to return to the role of administration manager that she held prior to going on her second period of maternity leave. A representative of Eurotech Renewables denied the claim and maintained that the complainant had been temporarily laid off due to various economic reasons that had nothing to do with her maternity leave. In evidence, Ms McGuinness said it was agreed that she would work a four-day week after she returned to work in November 2021 following an earlier period of maternity leave. She told the WRC that her role was filled by a temporary employee when she commenced her second period of maternity leave in December 2022. Ms McGuinness said she was phoned by a company director shortly before she was due to return to work in September 2023 to state that he had a new role for her. However, she was informed by the director two days before her scheduled return that the company could not afford to take her back 'at the moment'. However, Ms McGuinness said the correspondence ended with the director saying that Eurotech Renewables was 'regretful and saddened to have to let you go from the company', which she took to mean that she was dismissed. The WRC heard she wrote back to the company to express her shock but also to state that she was fully entitled to return to work in her original post 'if the new role is not there'. Ms McGuinness said the director told her by phone that her old role was not available as it was being filled by another person on a full-time basis. However, she said the director wrote to her again in October 2023 in which he stated that she had been placed on temporary lay-off but that a new role of 'service department receptionist' was available. Ms McGuinness said she believed the company was seeking to re-classify her dismissal as a temporary lay-off to limit 'their obvious legal exposure'. She outlined how she was given a deadline to respond to the offer of the alternative role, which she ignored and instead submitted a complaint to the WRC. Ms McGuinness said she had suffered a series of discriminatory acts, including when she was informed that she could not return to her former role after her maternity leave was over as a consequence of her former four-day arrangement. She also claimed the offer of the alternative role represented a demotion. However, Eurotech Renewables said Ms McGuinness had requested that she could return to a part-time role on her return to work in September 2023. The company claimed it was agreed that she would return to a customer service role when her request could not be accommodated. It maintained it experienced a significant downturn in its business around the same time and noted three other staff were also placed on a temporary lay-off. Eurotech Renewables said Ms McGuinness was also the first person to be contacted about a return to work following such lay-offs but she did not respond. WRC adjudication officer, Brian Dolan, said any reasonable employer in the circumstances of the case would have allowed Ms McGuinness return to the same role and offered the alternative position to the recently-hired member of staff. Mr Dolan noted that the company had not removed Ms McGuinness as an employee with the relevant authorities even though correspondence to her had read 'much like a letter of dismissal'. He concluded that Ms McGuinness was placed on unpaid lay-off before any other staff member solely on the basis of her absence due to maternity leave. Mr Dolan said she was presented with her removal from work as a fait accompli and was offered no real opportunity to advocate for her return to employment. He also observed that her former role was not considered for lay-off by the company. 'It is apparent that the complainant suffered discrimination on the grounds of availing of maternity leave,' said Mr Dolan. He ordered the company to pay €12,480 – the equivalent of six months' pay – to Ms McGuinness in compensation for the effects of the discrimination.
Dublin Live
5 days ago
- Business
- Dublin Live
Dublin restaurant worker awarded €17k after being made redundant while pregnant
Our community members are treated to special offers, promotions and adverts from us and our partners. You can check out at any time. More info A well-known hospitality group on Dublin's northside has been ordered to pay €17,000 to a former assistant manager of one of its restaurants who was made redundant shortly after notifying her manager she was pregnant. The Workplace Relations Commission ruled that McHugh's Restaurants had discriminated against Karen Condell on grounds of gender over her dismissal from her role as assistant manager at McHugh's restaurant in Portmarnock. The WRC found that it had breached the Employment Equality acts 1998-2015 in its handling of the dismissal. The company, which also operates McHugh's restaurant in Raheny and Blackbanks bar and grill in Kilbarrack, is part of a group which also operates a number of off-licences and Centra stores. Ms Condell claimed the redundancy cited as the reason for her dismissal was not genuine. She told the WRC that she informed her employer in June 2024 that she was pregnant. Ms Condell said she was subsequently informed by the group's hospitality manager, Paul Foley, at the end of July 2024 that the restaurant in Portmarnock would be closing but she was reassured that redeployment options would be explored. She gave evidence that no alternative role was found for her over the period she worked out her notice. The company said a decision was taken to close the Portmarnock restaurant on July 30, 2024. Mr Foley gave evidence that attempts were made to find alternative employment for affected staff. He stated employees with over a year of service were subsequently offered roles elsewhere within the group but only one staff member with less than 12 months' service – a chef – was redeployed due to a specific vacancy matching their role. Mr Foley said he had noted that "all our hospitality businesses are worryingly slow" when asked by Ms Condell in August 2024 about another role. He told her on August 27, 2024 that no alternative jobs had been found. Mr Foley said he mentioned that there might be a role in a deli although he had no authority over the group's grocery division, although he thought it might not be suitable given she was pregnant. WRC adjudication officer, Breiffni O'Neill, said he was satisfied that there was prima facie evidence that Ms Condell was discriminated against as the restaurant's owner had failed to source an alternative role for her following the closure of the outlet in Portmarnock. Mr O'Neill contrasted her situation with many of her colleagues from the Portmarnock restaurant who were not pregnant and who were given jobs elsewhere within the group. He highlighted how the company had held no discussions with Ms Condell prior to notifying her she was being made redundant on July 30, 2024. Mr O'Neill said she was also not provided with any opportunity to engage in what would have been a very belated consultation process about her redundancy in advance of her termination date. He specifically pointed to how she had not been asked for any input or questioned about her transferable skills, qualifications or previous experience. The WRC official noted that Mr Foley was unable to say if any other roles had become available within the group during her notice period which had not been offered to other staff from the Portmarnock restaurant. "The respondent did not take sufficient and effective measures to avoid dismissing the complainant on the grounds of redundancy," said Mr O'Neill. Ordering McHugh's Restaurants to pay Ms Condell compensation of €17,000 – the equivalent of 26 weeks' pay – for the negative effects of her discriminatory dismissal, Mr O'Neill said the sanction should be "effective, dissuasive and proportionate." While a higher award might well be justified in the case, he said it took into account Ms Condell's relatively short period of employment and the relatively small nature of the respondent's business. Join our Dublin Live breaking news service on WhatsApp. Click this link to receive your daily dose of Dublin Live content. We also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don't like our community, you can check out any time you like. If you're curious, you can read our Privacy Notice. For all the latest news from Dublin and surrounding areas visit our homepage.
Irish Times
5 days ago
- Business
- Irish Times
Swimming coaches recruited from Philippines win back almost €12,000 in wages deducted by employer
Three swimming instructors who were brought over from the Philippines to teach in Ireland and had hundreds of euro a week docked off their wages for 'training costs', before being let go, have won back their pay. The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) found there was 'no evidence' to back up a claim by the operator of a swimming school that it had spent €3,000 to train each of the workers. One of the workers' former colleagues told the WRC she was hired on the promise of 'a better life in Ireland' only to be 'forced' into taking a pay cut out of fear of dismissal. They were among a group of six Filipino instructors to pursue rights claims against the unidentified swimming school, which were heard in Ennis, Co Clare, in November and December last year. READ MORE Five of the workers have now secured a total of nearly €12,000 between them for breaches of the Payment of Wages Act 1991. An allied claim by the sixth worker has yet to be published by the WRC. All the workers are Filipino nationals. The company's legal representative said it was 'the first European company to obtain a work permit for Filipinos as swimming instructors'. Two of the six instructors started work for the swimming school in June 2022, then four more instructors were recruited in the Philippines in August 2022 and brought to Ireland in January 2023, the WRC heard. However, within months of securing work visas and flying in the new instructors, the school's management moved to shed staff, citing 'financial reasons' for terminating the employment of three of the new recruits during their probationary periods. The employer's position was it had conducted 'intensive' training with the newer instructors for the first three or four weeks they were in Ireland, which had enhanced their skills, and it had paid each of them throughout that period while making no income from them. The owner of the swimming school delivered the training personally and provided employees with 'instructional videos', the workers told the WRC. The employer's position was that this had cost €3,000 to provide. Andrea Montanelli, for the employer, said the company had 'highly invested' in bringing the workers from the Philippines, 'paying for their work permits, for the visa, flights' and so on. She said a total of €1,692.38 was taken from three of the workers' last four pay packets in 'instalments' of €641.45, €497.97, €276.48 and €276.48. The company relied on a training agreement and a deductions-from-pay agreement signed by the three new recruits in the Philippines in August 2022 as the basis for taking the 'instalments'. Under questioning from Elaine Davern-Wiseman, for the group of workers, the employees said these agreements were provided to them in English, without a translation into the Tagalog language, and that they signed them without having an opportunity to take legal advice. The workers each said they were already qualified swimming instructors when they were recruited and they said the only training they had was in how to teach swimming lessons 'the [company] way'. In her ruling, WRC adjudicator Orla Jones wrote that the employer 'did not provide any evidence to support the claim' that the training for the three new recruits actually cost the business €3,000 each. It could not rely on the agreements signed in the Philippines by the workers when they did not have the benefit of legal advice or an interpreter, she said. She said in her decision that the wording of the training costs agreement was that €3,000 referred to charging €3,000 to each worker if they were to 'leave' the employment. Ms Jones wrote that each of the workers had their jobs terminated and had not chosen to leave. The names of the company and the employees were anonymised in WRC decisions published this week because they were linked to parallel proceedings under the Industrial Relations Act 1969, which must be heard in private.
