AOC Solicitors

All four of the these decisions included reference to the principle outlined by Mr. Justice McKechnie in Donnellan that the imposition of retirement age should be individually assessed on a case-by-case basis.

The WRC is unlikely to accept mere generalisations or general probabilities as sufficient to justify a mandatory retirement age. Lack of individual assessment came against the employers in three of the four cases above.

Full article here
https://buff.ly/3wVtM2d

The Complainants refused to accept the changes because they believed that their hours were still available at their original place of work, and because they regarded the changes as “punishment” for taking three weeks of annual leave which their new manager had informed them was not permitted.

Read the full article here
https://buff.ly/3IAy8y7

A series of recent WRC cases on the issue of retirement age demonstrate the importance of forward planning by Organisations both in respect of their approach to the issue of retirement ages generally and in respect of the process for engaging directly with individual employees who are nearing retirement age.

Read the full article here
https://buff.ly/3IDnAi0

The issue before the High Court was whether or not the Labour Court erred in finding that a retained firefighter was not “working” during the periods he was on standby and awaiting a call-in.

Read the full article here
https://buff.ly/43jDlUB

In this case a member of An Garda Siochana (Mr. Hegarty) was accused of two breaches of discipline.

Allegation 1: The first allegation was that he had engaged in a sexual act with a “complainant” while on duty during the course of taking a statement of evidence from her relating to the arrest of her sister.

Allegation 2: The second allegation was that he failed to record a statement of evidence from the “complainant” relating to the arrest of her sister in accordance with proper procedure and his duty to do so.

Both allegations were admitted by the Garda.

Read the full article here
https://buff.ly/4avhpbJ

Anne O’Connell Solicitors is so proud to retain our Tier 2 ranking as an Employment Law Firm in the latest edition of the international legal directory, Legal 500. Our Principal, Anne O’Connell is recognised again as a Leading Individual and Laura Killelea & Jenny Wakely continue to be Recommended Lawyers. As a boutique employment law firm, we’re delighted to have achieved and retained this ranking.

The Legal 500 produce their rankings based on the quality of a firm’s work and feedback from its clients. We're so grateful to our wonderful clients for their continued support
https://buff.ly/3TyxIh2

500

They submitted that after they returned from annual leave, they were informed of changes to their place of work and hours of work. The Complainants claimed that they were initially informed that the changes were being made because they took three weeks of annual leave.

Read the full article here
https://buff.ly/48SLQqT

We’re delighted that three members of the AOC Team have been nominated for an award at the Villa Maria Women of Vision Awards 2024.

Anne, Laura and Jenny have all been recognised in the Legal Luminary category this year.

The Women of Vision Awards celebrates women across Ireland in various industries, and aims to highlight their achievements, to propel them forward in their career, and celebrate their extraordinary accomplishments while they pave the way for future generations.

It’s an honour for our team to be recognised.

We are aware that employment law in Ireland can be a tricky landscape to navigate, so we hope this article will be useful and informative for our readers.

https://buff.ly/4aadH6R

Walsh v Kerry County Council [2023] IEHC 719 concerned a recent appeal on a point of law from a determination of the Labour Court. The issue before the High Court was whether or not the Labour Court erred in finding that a retained firefighter was not “working” during the periods he was on standby and awaiting a call-in.

Read the full article here
https://buff.ly/4cbLNt3

In this case a member of An Garda Siochana (Mr. Hegarty) was accused of two breaches of discipline.

Allegation 1: The first allegation was that he had engaged in a sexual act with a “complainant” while on duty during the course of taking a statement of evidence from her relating to the arrest of her sister.

Allegation 2: The second allegation was that he failed to record a statement of evidence from the “complainant” relating to the arrest of her sister in accordance with proper procedure and his duty to do so.

Both allegations were admitted by the Garda.

Read the full article here
https://buff.ly/3TBcRuw

We are aware that employment law in Ireland can be a tricky landscape to navigate, so we hope this article will be useful and informative for our readers.

https://buff.ly/3v9iyqi

In short, the TUPE Regulations exist to safeguard the rights of employees where there is a change in the legal owner of the business or part of the business in which they are employed.

The TUPE Regulations implement Directive 2001/23/EC, 12th March 2021 (Acquired Rights Directive) and provide that employees are entitled to the same terms and conditions of employment that they enjoyed before the change in ownership subject to limited exceptions.

Read the full article here
https://buff.ly/476YCRS

A meeting took place on 23rd February with the Complainant, his line manager, and a HR Generalist. Following this, the Complainant was issued with a letter setting out the decision not to extend his retirement age. The letter stated that this decision was not based on any performance issues.

The Complainant requested an appeal which took place on 5th April 2023 with Mr James Mangan, HR Director. Mr Mangan issued a decision on 14th April refusing the Complainant’s appeal and referred to the Respondent’s reasons for maintaining a universal retirement age of 65.

Read the full article here
https://buff.ly/486ziN6

The Complainant was not provided with a contract of employment by the Respondent, but usually worked approximately 40 hours per week.

Rosters were provided on a weekly basis. The Complainant was paid €70 per day in cash. The Complainant submitted that shortly after she commenced employment clients requested additional services of a sexual nature, which she reported to both managers.

Following this, she was taken to dinner by them and told that she “could say no”, but that they “could assure her that she wouldn’t get more clients”...

Read the full article here
https://buff.ly/477cECT

On 20th November 2023, the Minister for Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery & Reform published new Statutory Guidance for public bodies on the Protected Disclosures Act 2014, following on from the amendment of the Act last year.

The purpose of the Guidance is to assist primarily public bodies, but also the private sector, in understanding their obligations under the Act and give practical advice as regards best practice in setting up and operating reporting channels for workers to raise concerns about wrongdoing in the workplace.

The Minister expressly stated that he hoped that the private sector organisations would also find this Guidance useful.

Read the full article here
https://buff.ly/48kWJSB

On 27th November 2023, paid domestic violence leave came into effect in Ireland. The leave is provided for by the new section 13AA in the Parental Leave Acts 1998 – 2003, inserted by the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 2023.

Read the Key Provisions of the Act here
https://buff.ly/3TkVJcV

The provisions of the Sick Leave Act (“the Act”) commenced on 1st January 2023 and provides that an employee shall be entitled, up to and including three statutory sick leave days in a year. From the 1st January 2024, that entitlement to sick leave will increase to 5 days in a year.

Here is a reminder of the key provisions of the Act
https://buff.ly/3tj3PIm

The Respondent argued the decision to dismiss the Complainant was entirely fair in circumstances where the Complainant was on a Final Written Warning and there were two operative grounds for dismissal:
- The Complainant’s lateness and failure to report this in accordance with policy
- The Complainant’s breach of the intoxication policy

The Complainant argued that the procedures followed were unfair and that the sanction was disproportionate.

Decision: The Adjudicator, Patricia Owens, upheld the Complainant’s unfair dismissal complaint. In reaching this decision, she considered two main questions...

Read the full article here
https://buff.ly/3v1tUMz

The Complainant in this case commenced employment with the Respondent as a Pharmocovigilance Manager in August 2018. In May, 2019, he made a protected disclosure concerning marketing materials which were being published and distributed by the Respondent. The disclosure related to a concern that the materials appeared very similar to patient information materials, which are tightly controlled and regulated by law.

Read the full article here
https://buff.ly/3GI0kOH

Facts: The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent as a postal operative on 3rd April 2017 and remained in employment at the time the matter came before the WRC.

The Complainant claimed that she was inappropriately touched by a postal sorter (Mr A) on 22nd February 2022 who she said put his hand on the inside of her right thigh and moved it down towards her knee. The Complainant claimed that she pushed Mr A away and shouted at him not to put his hands on her.

Read the full article here
https://buff.ly/3GIivDP

Facts: The Complainant has been employed by Respondent as a shop assistant since 2007. The Respondent operates 22 SuperValu branches, formerly Superquinn stores.

The Complainant was absent due to illness for four consecutive days in January 2023 and was paid by the Respondent for the fourth day only, as per the Respondent’s sick pay scheme. The Complainant argued she was entitled to statutory sick pay (“SSP”) under Section 5 of the Act. Section 5 of the Act provides that employees are entitled to SSP for up to three days per year. The Respondent has a sick pay scheme which provides for eight weeks paid sick leave. However, under the Respondent’s scheme the first three days of sickness absence are considered “waiting days” and are unpaid.

Read the full article here
https://buff.ly/3t9WfzQ

Facts: The Complainant was employed by the Respondent from 2008 to September 2022. At the time of her resignation, her role was Trade Activation Manager Digital. The Complainant described that over 2018/2019, there was a restructuring and reduced headcount in the Respondent which resulted in additional work and pressure for the Complainant.

Read the full article here
https://buff.ly/3RIi17h

Facts: The Complainant was employed by the Respondent from 2008 to September 2022. At the time of her resignation, her role was Trade Activation Manager Digital. The Complainant described that over 2018/2019, there was a restructuring and reduced headcount in the Respondent which resulted in additional work and pressure for the Complainant.

Read the full article here
https://buff.ly/3RHuBDy

Facts: The Complainant was employed by the Respondent from September 2010 until his dismissal in June 2021. He had been off on certified medical leave on 69 occasions due to being in hospital for treatment of hip and back pain.

However, the Complainant complied with the terms and conditions set out in the employee handbook which stated that all sick leave must be supported by a medical certificate.

Read the full article here
https://buff.ly/47Wm70W

Facts: The Complainant was employed by the Respondent, a place of worship and a heritage site, in a variety of roles from 1st June 2013 to 18th December 2019. When his employment was terminated by the Respondent, he held the position of Verger.

The Respondent submitted to the WRC that the Complainant was dismissed for gross misconduct and misconduct for attending work 45 minutes late, failing to report his lateness in line with the Respondent’s absence reporting procedure, and attending work under the influence of alcohol. He was already on a Final Written Warning at the time. The decision contains a detailed chronology of events, including prior incidents in respect of which the Respondent told the WRC it exercised “considerable forbearance”.

Read the full article here
https://buff.ly/3RHCE3d

Here’s what you get as an AOC newsletter subscriber…

- Insights from specialists in employment law
- Updates on changes and developments
- Stay informed about the latest news
- Breakdown of current issues
- Industry insights
- Hot topics

Each month our award winning team will help you gain a deeper understanding of employment law issues in Ireland.

Get the latest insights straight to your inbox!

⬇️ Join Today ⬇️
https://buff.ly/3QEPlKq

{hashtag|\ #|EmploymentLaw} {hashtag|\ #|Ireland} {hashtag|\ #|EmploymentIreland} {hashtag|\ #|IrishLabourLaw}

The Twelve Bells of Wisdom for Employers at Christmas

With the festive season approaching and Christmas parties firmly back on the agenda, we look at some workplace issues commonly faced by employers at this time of year and suggest some practical tips for dealing with them successfully.

Including:
1. Prevention is Better than Cure!
2. Remind Staff of What is Naughty and not Nice?
3. Social Media Control
4. The After Party Issues
5. Sick-v-Hangover
6. Respect Different Cultures at Christmas
7. Rules to Avoid Inappropriate Gifts at Work
8. Out of Sight, Out of Mind
9. Charity Without Pressure
10. Be Aware that Christmas is Not Merry for Everyone
11. Tax Efficient Bonus
12. January Blues

Click the link below to read the full article
https://buff.ly/480Idjf

Facts: The Complainant initially commenced part-time employment as a Special Needs Assistant \(“SNA”\) in the Respondent school in February 2017. In the summer of 2018, the Complainant was offered a full-time position at the school. The Respondent is a mainstream school with an autism unit attached to it.

In March 2019, the Complainant was placed on a Performance Improvement Plan \(“PIP”\) which included a suggestion that he manage his time differently and take toilet breaks outside of class time. According to the Complainant, he had no input into the PIP.

Read the full article here
https://buff.ly/40D3c8K

In an article published in our October 2022 newsletter , we discussed the decision of the Workplace Relations Commission \(“WRC”\) in ADJ-00033234. This decision was subsequently appealed to the Labour Court. In Conor Williamson v David Stone and Carol Stone t/a Ashton Dog Pound and Warden Service \(PDD232\), the Labour Court \(the “Court”\) overturned the WRC decision, finding that there was no causal link between the protected disclosure and the Complainant’s suspension/final written warning.

Read the full article here
https://buff.ly/3MFfV59