Empty Link Skip to Content

Employment Law: Looking Back on 2024

From emerging regulation in the space of ESG, pay transparency and AI, to new codes of practice and case law regarding remote working and employment status, and significant immigration developments, 2024 encompassed a myriad of important employment law developments for employers.

We now take a look back at some of these key employment law themes for 2024 and some developments on the horizon.

ESG and Pay Equity Focus

Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (“CSRD”)

New Irish regulations came into force on 6 July 2024 to implement the CSRD for in-scope Irish companies, their non-EU incorporated parent companies, and branches of non-EU incorporated companies that are established in Ireland.  The CSRD applies on a phased basis depending on the size and nature of the company, but many large companies will be required to start reporting in 2025.

The CSRD is aimed at bringing sustainability reporting up to the same standard as financial reporting, thereby increasing corporate accountability. In-scope employers will be required to make a broad array of employment-related disclosures in their annual reports, which we anticipate will also lead to increased focus on a company's employment practices and policies. CSRD reporting will also provide a lens through which employees will be able evaluate how their employers and prospective employers are performing in respect of ESG. For further information on the “need to know” aspects of the CSRD from a people perspective, please see: CSRD for HR Practitioners: How to Elevate your Strategic Impact.

Pay Transparency

Ireland’s gender pay gap (“GPG”) reporting regime continues to expand, with the threshold for reporting obligations being lowered again in 2025 to include employers with 50 or more employees (for our guidance on this for new reporting employers please see: Gender Pay Gap Reporting 2025: Lessons Learned In Practice). 

The Pay Transparency Directive (“PTD”), which must be implemented by 2026, will (on a phased basis) extend the existing GPG reporting requirements in Ireland and will require changes to our existing regime, including the reporting of pay gaps by “categories of workers” i.e., workers doing the same or similar work. It aims to eliminate unequal pay for equal work and to enable workers to have balanced and fair negotiations regarding salaries. This is to be achieved through pay transparency measures such as information rights for employees, pay transparency for jobseekers, and stronger enforcement provisions.

The PTD will also introduce significant and very extensive pay transparency obligations on all employers (irrespective of headcount) which will strengthen the application of the principle of equal pay and promote equality in respect of remuneration for employees and applicants. Our previous articles on the PTD provide guidance on this significant upcoming legislative development: Putting the “S” and “G” in ESG: What Employers Need to Know in 2024, and New Law on the Way – Bringing Pay Transparency into Sharp Focus.

New Rules on Maternity Leave and Non-Disclosure Agreements

In November 2024, the Maternity Protection, Employment Equality, and Preservation of Certain Records Act 2024 was enacted.

The first significant change in this legislation for employers is that employees that are suffering from a serious health condition will now be permitted to defer all or part of their maternity leave for up to 52 weeks.  Such employees must give two weeks’ notice of postponement (and a medical certificate) and the postponement period must be at least five weeks, following which the employee can resume their maternity leave immediately provided that they notify their employer as soon as reasonably possible.  One additional postponement is possible but the total postponement time is capped at 52 weeks.

The legislation also restricts the use of non-disclosure agreements (“NDAs”) which operate as “gagging orders” to prevent employees from discussing allegations of discrimination, harassment, sexual harassment or victimisation, in relation to their employment (or potential employment).  Aside from some limited exceptions, any agreement which contains an NDA will be rendered null and void; this is not just applied to the confidentiality clause but the entire agreement. Therefore, employers should review and update their template compromise agreement and employment agreements to ensure that they do not fall foul of these new regulations.

AI in the Workplace

AI is becoming increasingly prominent in the modern workplace, and with it come new opportunities and new challenges for employers, which we first highlighted back in October: Navigating the Intersection Between AI and Employment Law.  We have considered this in detail in our podcast (AI In The Workplace: What Employers Need To Know) and in several articles, including one on the much-discussed subject of AI bias: Biased by Design? Unlocking AI’s Hidden Risks.  The EU has responded to the AI phenomenon with new regulatory efforts, which are discussed below.

The AI Act

The new EU AI Act came into force on 1 August 2024 and will be fully applicable by 2 August 2026, with various rules coming into force in 2025; our Technology & Innovation colleagues have put together a helpful timeline for implementation.  Many employers will be regulated as “deployers” of AI in various “high-risk” use cases such as recruitment, evaluation or assignment of tasks, and promotion or termination decisions. 

Employers (as deployers) will be obliged to ensure human oversight and monitoring of AI system activity, assess the relevance and suitability of data input, and will be subject to a new right for individuals to obtain a clear and meaningful explanation of the role played by AI in decision-making they have been subject to.  We have recommended several courses of action for employers to get ready for the implementation of the AI Act, including developing training, policies and procedures, and risk assessments: The EU AI Act: The Download for Employers; AI in the Workplace – What Are Employers Doing to Prepare?

Regulation of platform work

On 11 November 2024, the Platform Work Directive (the “PWD”) on improving working conditions in platform work was published in the Official Journal. EU member states will have until 2 December 2026 to transpose its provisions into national law.

Employers providing “gig economy” services involving automated monitoring or decision-making systems may be regulated as “digital labour platforms” and owe various obligations to their workers under the PWD.  The PWD also contains some provisions on determination of employment status, but these are sufficiently broad that the Supreme Court’s decision in The Revenue Commissioners v Karshan (Midlands) Ltd t/a Domino’s Pizza (the “Karshan Case”) will likely continue to dictate this question in Ireland.

The PWD imposes significant restrictions on data processing and collection, and broadens the scope of information and consultation requirements in relation to algorithmic management systems.  These systems must also be subject to human oversight and review, similarly to the requirements imposed by the AI Act.  The PWD also contains some more unusual provisions aimed at allowing workers to move between platforms more easily and at promoting labour organisation.  We have discussed its implications for employers in more detail here: The Gig Is Up: New Rules for Platform Work and the Digital Boss.

Continuing Developments from 2023

Determination of employment status

The Revenue Commissioners published in May 2024 their guidance on the application of the Karshan Case to determining employment status for tax purposes.  See our insights article here: New Irish Revenue Guidance on Determining Employment Status.

The WRC also had its say on the Karshan Case, firstly in the case of Matthew McGranahan v MEPC Music Limited (ADJ-00037668), where a fiddler for the Michael English Band was held to be an employee based on the high degree of control exercised by the employer and the exceptional nature of any right of substitution. 

The WRC also updated in November its Code of Practice on Determining Employment Status, which does not have binding legal status but which provides some welcome clarity for employers as to the factors Adjudication Officers will consider when deciding cases such as these.

Remote and Flexible Working

The Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act came into force in 2023, but employers had to wait until March this year for the publication of the Code of Practice on the Right to Request Flexible Working and Right to Request Remote Working.  Among other things, the Code aims to discourage regular out-of-hours working and to encourage employees to raise grievances if they feel that their right to disconnect is not being respected.  As we noted in September (The Right to Disconnect: Lessons From Ireland), while employers initially expected a deluge of grievances and WRC complaints based on the Code (notwithstanding its non-binding nature), this never materialised.  The impact of the Code was instead largely in the adoption of new policies and more flexible ways of working by employers, and a perceptible behavioural shift around expectations to answer emails or calls outside of working hours.

Following the publication of the Code, the WRC in July handed down its first decision in response to an employee claim that their right to request remote working had been breached, in the case of Alina Karabko v TikTok Technology Ltd (ADJ-00051600).  This was a welcome decision for employers; the Adjudication Officer held that the WRC was not authorised to review the merits of an employer’s decision on remote working, and that the employer had informed the employee in writing of the refusal and the reasons for its decision.  This decision, as we noted at the time (How to Handle Remote Working Requests? First WRC Decision Lands), emphasises the importance of employers following proper procedures and giving serious consideration to these requests, while leaving the ultimate decision to the employer.  We discussed both of these developments on our podcast here: Remote Working Code of Practice and a Record WRC Award.

Noteworthy Case Law

Though arguably none were as momentous as the Karshan Case from last year, 2024 saw many interesting and important cases in the employment sphere.

We considered the case of Nolan v Science Foundation Ireland in a podcast earlier this year, where an employee was dismissed on a no-fault termination basis in circumstances where his employer had previously carried out a disciplinary process for misconduct against him.  The employee attempted to prevent his dismissal by way of an injunction, but the High Court and then the Supreme Court (in refusing leave to appeal) denied this application on the basis that the contested factual background made the case unsuitable for the grant of an injunction.  Listen to our consideration of the case here: Nolan v Science Foundation Ireland.

In the case of An Bord Bainistíochta, Gaelscoil Moshíológ v The Labour Court, a principal was dismissed for inflating student numbers to secure extra funding, a sanction that the Labour Court described as the “kiss of death” to his career.  The Labour Court ordered re-engagement, but the High Court reduced the sanction by setting the date of re-engagement at the date of dismissal.  The Supreme Court upheld the Labour Court’s remedy for practical reasons, but held that in general orders of re-engagement or reinstatement must be based on a clear and balanced explanation of the facts.  The Supreme Court in this case also endorsed the “range of reasonable responses” test in Ireland.

Finally, awards for unfair dismissals continue to climb to dizzying heights, with the WRC breaking its own record for the highest unfair dismissal award twice in 2024.  This happened first in February in Kiely v Hyph Ireland (ADJ-00037708), where a senior executive was awarded €464,000 after being removed as CEO, including €440,000 for loss of earnings.  We discussed this on our podcast here: Remote Working Code of Practice and a Record WRC Award.  This record was then broken again in Gary Rooney v Twitter UC (ADJ-00044246), where a senior executive was awarded €550,131 after being dismissed for failing to click “yes” to an email setting out unspecified changes to terms and conditions.

As you can see, a lot has happened in the employment law sphere in 2024. The 2025 horizon looks no different! We will consider what's coming down the tracks and update you after the holiday season. 

Contact Us

Visit our Employment, Pensions and Benefits page to stay up to date with the latest updates, articles and briefing notes.  For more information please do reach out to Employment partners Bryan Dunne, Geraldine Carr, Ailbhe Dennehy, Alice Duffy or Russell Rochford or your usual Matheson contact should you require further information in relation to the material referred to in this update.