Employer Resources Newsletter - February 2025

Irish Employers Urged to Prioritise Health and Safety in 2025 Budgeting 

As we get stuck into 2025, Irish employers are being reminded of the crucial need to prioritise health and safety (H&S) in their budgeting and planning. A comprehensive H&S budget isn't just about compliance; it's about creating a safe and healthy work environment, which ultimately contributes to a more productive and successful organisation. Prioritising H&S is not just a legal obligation; it's a smart employer decision. Investing in a strong safety culture can reduce absenteeism, improve employee morale, and avoid costly legal repercussions. 

The Health and Safety Authority (HSA) emphasises the importance of proactive H&S management. As stated in their 2023 Annual Report, "The HSA's work focuses on preventing workplace injuries and ill-health, and promoting a culture of safety and health in Ireland." This highlights the broader societal impact of prioritising H&S. The report showcases the HSA's commitment to supporting employers in achieving these goals. Data consistently shows that workplaces with robust safety measures experience fewer accidents and have a more engaged workforce. For instance, the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA) has highlighted the strong link between good occupational safety and health and improved performance. 

Employers should ask themselves key questions when developing their H&S budget. Are they simply aiming for regulatory compliance, or are they striving for a best-in-class safety management system, perhaps targeting international standards like ISO? Understanding the organisation's current H&S performance and identifying potential risks are essential first steps. Independent assessments can be invaluable in this process. 

A well-structured H&S budget should allocate resources across several key areas: 

• Risk Assessment and Hazard Identification: Regular risk assessments are fundamental. Budget should cover identifying hazards, implementing control measures, and prioritising resources for the highest risks. 
• Training and Development: Investing in employee training on H&S procedures, emergency response, and equipment usage is critical. This includes areas like First Aid, CPR, manual handling, and specialised certifications. 
• Personal Protective Equipment (PPE): Adequate funding for purchasing and replacing PPE is essential. Employees must have access to compliant PPE and know how to use and maintain it. 
• Equipment Maintenance and Inspection: Regular inspection and maintenance of safety equipment, from fire extinguishers to lifting equipment, is a legal requirement and a budgetary necessity. 
• Workplace Safety Improvements: Budget should be allocated for physical improvements to the workplace, such as ergonomic upgrades, fall protection, and general maintenance. 
• Emergency Preparedness: Funds must be set aside for emergency supplies, evacuation drills, and ensuring employees are familiar with emergency procedures. 
• Health and Wellness Programs: Investing in employee wellbeing through programs addressing mental and physical health can significantly reduce workplace stress and promote a safer environment. 
• Compliance and Legal Requirements: Budget should cover software or external support to stay up-to-date with evolving H&S regulations. 
• Accident Investigation and Reporting: Thorough investigation of accidents and near misses, along with implementing preventative actions, is essential and requires dedicated resources. 
• Insurance and Liability: Adequate liability insurance and workers' compensation coverage are crucial and must be factored into the budget. 
• Safety Equipment and Technology: Investing in technology like safety software, reporting systems, and monitoring tools can significantly improve safety management and inform future budgeting decisions by identifying trends and high-risk areas. 

By addressing these key areas, Irish employers can create a robust H&S budget that not only ensures compliance but also fosters a culture of safety and wellbeing, protecting their most valuable asset – their employees. This proactive approach will contribute to a healthier workforce, a more productive organisation and a stronger safety record, aligning with the HSA's mission to create safer workplaces across Ireland. 

Adare is a team of expert-led Employment Law, Industrial Relations and best practice Human Resource Management consultants. If your organisation needs advice, support, or guidance about compliance requirements or any HR issues, please contact Adare to learn what services are available to support your organisation.

Dublin Office: (01) 561 3594 | Cork Office: (021) 486 1420 | Shannon Office: (061) 363 805

info@adarehrm.ie | www.adarehrm.ie

Complainant receives €29,000 in compensation in disability discrimination 

Background

The complainant, an educational book supplier, claimed disability discrimination and victimisation under the Employment Equality Act 1998. Diagnosed in 2013, her condition caused joint pain, restricting her ability to lift. She informed the respondent in 2022 but received little support. In March 2023, a driver and lifting assistance were introduced, yet the respondent maintained that lifting remained an essential job requirement. Following occupational health advice limiting her to lifting 3kg, the respondent deemed her role unviable.   

On 20 June 2023, she was informed that her position was no longer sustainable and was offered an alternative role, which she declined, feeling unqualified. Her employment was terminated on 22 August 2023. In November 2023, she found a new job with lower pay but was able to perform similar duties with accommodations. She argued that the respondent failed to assess her ability to work with reasonable accommodations, acted in bad faith, and caused her financial loss, stress, and emotional distress.   

The respondent denied any discrimination, asserting that her dismissal was solely due to her inability to perform key job duties. While acknowledging her medical condition, it disputed whether it met the legal definition of a disability under the Act. The respondent maintained that assigning a colleague to handle lifting exceeded its obligations and that the alternative role offered was reasonable, though she chose not to accept it. 

Complainants View 

The complainant, diagnosed with Lupus SLE, alleged disability discrimination under the Employment Equality Act 1998. Her condition, recognised as a disability under Section 2(1)(a), caused joint pain, limiting her ability to lift. The respondent was aware of her condition since her employment began in 2019 and was formally notified of its impact in April 2022. 

The respondent failed to provide reasonable accommodations, disregarding medical evidence, neglecting to explore alternatives, and failing to assess whether she could perform her role with a 3kg lifting limit. The internal process was biased and pre-determined, denying her input and timely notice of employment risks. She faced discrimination due to this flawed assessment and lack of accommodations. 

She continued in a similar role with her new employer without issues, proving reasonable accommodations were possible. The respondent subjected her to a predetermined review process after she raised health concerns, amounting to victimisation under Section 74(2). Her dismissal was unlawful and based on her disability, causing significant financial loss, stress, and emotional distress. 

Complainant’s Evidence   

The complainant detailed her qualifications, career, and experience before joining the respondent. Diagnosed with Lupus SLE in 2013 after extensive testing and treatment, she worked to manage her condition. She joined the respondent in 2019, undergoing a pre-employment medical and training before starting her sales representative role. 

Her job involved transporting and demonstrating books to teachers. When unable to meet teachers, she left books in staffrooms. A storage unit was later provided for her stock. In September 2020, she began experiencing health issues and applied for reimbursement of medical expenses for a wrist strap and ice packs. 

In April 2022, she formally informed the health and safety committee about her condition and lifting challenges, but no action was taken. She reiterated her concerns via email in January 2023, again receiving no specific response. In January 2023, she was referred for an occupational health assessment, which led to restrictions on lifting and a recommendation to wear a wrist splint. 

By March 2023, a warehouse colleague was assigned to accompany her on school visits, drive her, and handle lifting duties. This arrangement lasted until June 2023. However, in June, the respondent deemed her role unviable due to her lifting restriction and proposed an alternative position. She found the new role unsuitable due to its scope, required skills, and high-pressure targets. 

On 22 June 2023, the respondent formally confirmed her sales representative role was not sustainable and awaited her decision on the alternative job. She perceived the communication as threatening and contested the decision, raising a formal complaint. On 3 July, her GP certified her unfit for work due to stress. Her solicitors sought mediation, but the respondent declined engagement. On 8 August, the CEO decided to terminate her employment without a meeting. 

She started a new job on 6 November 2023 with lower pay but successfully performed similar duties with accommodations. She argued the respondent could have provided similar adjustments but failed to do so. 

Respondents View 

The complainant has not established a prima facie case of discrimination under section 85(A) of the 1998 Act. Relevant case law on the evidential burden was cited.   

The respondent questioned whether Lupus SLE qualifies as a disability under the Act. While acknowledging the complainant’s condition, the respondent was unclear on how it met the legal definition of disability.   

The complainant did not provide evidence of discrimination in her employment conditions or identify a comparator. Additionally, she failed to establish a protected act prior to the alleged adverse treatment, which is essential for a victimisation claim. Raising concerns about health does not qualify as a protected act under the act.   

The respondent denies discrimination and asserts that reasonable accommodations were not feasible. The complainant could not fulfill key job requirements, such as lifting and carrying more than 3kg, which is essential for a supplier representative demonstrating products. The accommodations she sought conflicted with the company’s business strategy and would impose an undue burden. The respondent offered her an alternative role that met her needs, but she declined to engage with the proposal. Her employment was terminated on capability grounds following a fair process.   

The complainant’s own account and medical evidence confirmed she was unable to perform her job safely. The respondent’s actions to ensure her safety have led to this discrimination claim. Despite not being obligated, the respondent offered her a well-suited alternative role, which she did not consider.   

The complainant’s core argument is that the company did not alter its sales model to accommodate her. However, the offer of an alternative role demonstrates the respondent’s efforts to go beyond its obligations.   

The respondent outlined its commitment to inclusivity, employee well-being, and the context of these proceedings in written submissions.   

Summary of Business Manager Evidence   

Mr. A.W, a Business Manager since 2012, described the respondent’s business, sales process, and the hands-on nature of the business representative role. Each representative manages a geographic area, interacting directly with teachers and demonstrating books in person to secure listings on school book lists.   

Mr. A.W conducted two interviews with the complainant in 2019, where the role was explained in detail. He did not believe the job could be done with only one book per school visit.  

During the COVID-19 pandemic, books were mailed to teachers, but this was an exception. Once schools reopened, both the respondent and its competitors resumed in-person presentations.   

Mr. A.W first learned of the complainant’s Lupus SLE in April 2022 but was unaware of its full impact until the April 2024 hearing. He was informed in early 2023 that she could lift only one book at a time but was not involved in deciding how to address this limitation.   

At a meeting on April 5, 2023, requested by the complainant, Mr A.W discussed her proposal to mail books but did not address funding for disability support. At a later meeting on June 20, 2023, he agreed that the 3kg weight restriction made the role unmanageable. He did not recall a box trolley being discussed but considered it impractical.   

Mr. A.W believed the complainant was well-suited for an alternative CPD and Development Executive role. However, after the June meeting, she went on sick leave, and his only further involvement was receiving medical certificates.   

Julie G’s Evidence 

Ms. G, the Commercial Director, was involved in the complainant’s hiring process and ensured applicants understood the job’s demands.   

She first learned of the complainant’s lifting issue in April 2022 but believed it had been resolved following contact with the health and safety committee. In early 2023, the situation escalated medically, leading to a temporary measure where a colleague assisted the complainant. The witness only became aware of the 3kg lifting restriction in May 2023 after receiving a revised occupational health report.   

On April 5, 2023, Ms. G met with the complainant to discuss the March 14 occupational therapy report. The 3kg restriction was not discussed. The complainant shared that lifting could trigger flare-ups, and the witness decided to continue the colleague’s assistance. The complainant suggested posting books, but the business manager explained why this was not viable. After the meeting, Ms. G spoke to Mr. M about disability support funding but did not personally follow up.   

A new role in the primary sector was being developed, and based on the complainant’s situation, Ms. G suggested she would be a good fit.   

At the June 20 meeting, the complainant was informed that the business representative role was no longer feasible due to the lifting requirement and was asked to consider the new position. She was encouraged to discuss it with Ms. G and the CEO, but she did not engage. The complainant also did not respond to an email on June 22 with the job description. It was made clear that declining the new role meant her current role would end. Ms. G fully expected the complainant to accept, as the alternative role involved no lifting and posed no risk to her health. She did not agree with the complainant’s objections to the role.   

Findings and Conclusion  

The claims referred to the Workplace Relations Commission on 13 July 2023 under section 77 of the Employment Equality Acts 1998-2015 were of discrimination on grounds of disability and victimisation. 

Decision  

Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts 1998 – 2015 required the Adjudicator make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 82 of the Act. 

The Adjudicator found that there was a contravention of the Acts in respect of reasonable accommodation and order compensation, payable by the respondent to the complainant, in the sum of €29,000 for this discrimination on grounds of disability. 

The Adjudicator found that the claim of victimisation is not well founded. 

Our Commentary 

Employers must actively and meaningfully engage with employees who disclose disabilities to ensure that reasonable accommodations are considered and implemented appropriately. This process involves thoroughly evaluating whether the employee can perform the essential functions of their job with the necessary adjustments, while carefully documenting each step of the assessment. A failure to genuinely consult and collaborate with the employee can result in claims of discrimination, as it may appear that the employer is not taking the employee's needs seriously or making an adequate effort to provide fair accommodations. 

When proposing alternative roles, it is essential that employers tailor these opportunities to the employee's abilities and qualifications. The alternative roles should not be ones that the employee perceives as unsuitable, overly demanding, or irrelevant to their skills. Presenting roles in this way may give the impression that the employer is not genuinely committed to finding a reasonable accommodation, which could undermine the employee's confidence in the process and potentially lead to legal claims. Employers should make a sincere effort to offer roles that align with the employee’s capabilities and ensure that these roles are truly feasible within the context of the employee's skills and experience. 

Furthermore, it is critical for employers to implement transparent and fair processes when reviewing accommodation requests and making decisions about potential changes to an employee's role. The decision-making process should be impartial, following the guidelines set out in equality legislation to avoid any perception of bias or unfair treatment. Effective communication is key. Employees should be kept informed throughout the process with clear, timely updates, and be given opportunities to provide input and feedback. Failing to follow these principles could lead to claims that the process was pre-determined or discriminatory, further complicating the employer's legal standing and employee relations. 

Two Thirds of Employees in Scope of Gender Pay Gap Reporting Legislation in 2025 

It is estimated that the expanded scope of gender pay gap reporting legislation will include over two-thirds of Employees this year. In 2025, organisations with 50 Employees or more are required to publish a gender pay gap report. A much broader range of SME Employers will therefore be in scope for the first time this year. Early preparation is vital to understand the compliance burden involved, what data is required, the stakeholders who will need to participate and what information to publish in the report itself. 

Impact of Gender Pay Gap Reporting on SMEs 

While large organisations have the resources and infrastructure to comply with the gender pay gap reporting regulations, SMEs face more significant challenges. Organisations with just over 50 Employees may not have dedicated HR departments or extensive data management systems for instance. Many SMEs will lack the resources to effectively analyse pay disparities, report the data, and implement corrective measures. Despite these challenges, SMEs are encouraged to view gender pay gap reporting not just as a legal obligation but as a strategic opportunity for growth. Organisations that invest in closing the gender pay gap often see improvements in employee morale, engagement, and overall performance. 

So, while the introduction of gender pay gap reporting requirements means additional administrative and financial costs to gather, analyse, and report the required pay data, there are several long-term benefits associated with ensuring compliance: 

Promoting a More Inclusive Workplace: Even small businesses with 50 or more employees can benefit from promoting gender equality by addressing pay disparities. With the increased focus on gender pay gap reporting, SMEs are incentivised to foster an inclusive culture where employees are paid fairly for their work. 

Improved Talent Retention and Recruitment: As jobseekers gain more pay transparency rights in the coming years, organisations that disclose their gender pay gaps and make efforts to close them may have a competitive edge in attracting top talent. Conversely, failure to address the issue could result in losing out on skilled employees who value transparent pay practices. 

Enhanced Reputation: Compliance with gender pay gap regulations helps foster a reputation as a fair employer that is committed to diversity and inclusion. For SMEs with 50+ employees, this can be a key differentiator in a competitive labour market. 

Consequences of Non-Compliance with Gender Pay Gap Reporting Regulations 

Failure to comply with gender pay gap reporting regulations can have legal and reputational consequences. While the government has not yet introduced strict penalties for non-compliance, it is important for organisations to recognise the potential risks involved in ignoring these obligations. 

Legal Repercussions: Employees have a right to seek an order from the Workplace Relations Commission compelling their Employer to comply with the requirement to publish a gender pay gap report. The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission also has authority to file a Circuit Court or High Court application in cases of non-compliance. 

Reputation Damage: One of the most significant consequences of failing to comply is the potential for damage to an organisation’s reputation. Pay transparency is increasingly valued by consumers, employees, and stakeholders. Non-compliance may lead to public scrutiny and harm an organisation’s brand. 

Impact on Business Opportunities: Businesses that fail to comply with gender pay gap reporting regulations may lose out on opportunities to secure contracts with clients who have diversity goals. Moreover, in the age of corporate social responsibility, being seen as an employer that does not take gender pay equality seriously could limit expansion options. 

Decreased Employee Morale and Engagement: Employees may be less engaged if they feel that pay inequality is not being addressed by their employer. Non-compliance with gender pay gap reporting regulations can lead to dissatisfaction, decreased productivity, and lower employee retention. This can be particularly harmful to SMEs that rely on a smaller but highly skilled workforce. 

Early Preparation is Vital 

The reason a gender pay gap exists in one organisation may be entirely different from the reason it exists in another. Each organisation must therefore review its own pay data and formulate a narrative around why a gender pay gap has developed and how the organisation intends to reduce it. SMEs who successfully navigate these regulations in 2025 and beyond have an opportunity to demonstrate leadership in gender equality and position themselves as attractive employers in a competitive market. The government has also indicated the reporting deadline will move to November in 2025, meaning that organisations will have only five months from the June snapshot date to compile and publish their report. Early preparation is therefore vital. 

Adare is launching a new service to empower your organisation with the insights and tools you need to understand, address, and report on your gender pay gap effectively. Email info@adarehrm.ie for more details or click here.