The HR Company Administrator, Author at The HR Company

About The HR Company Administrator

This author has not yet filled in any details.
So far The HR Company Administrator has created 142 blog entries.

Employers must maintain terms & conditions of Employees on Maternity Leave

Equality Tribunal awards €80k to employee subjected to discriminatory treatment. The former employee (the complainant) in this case commenced employment with her employer (the respondent) in 2003 – She was appointed Financial Controller in 2007 and her employment ended in February 2011. She referred a complaint under the Employment Equality Acts, 1998-2008 to the Equality Tribunal on 12 July, 2011.

The respondent, who had gone into liquidation by the time the Hearing took place in December, 2013 did not attend the Hearing. The liquidator, who received adequate notice of the Hearing, chose not to attend either. The Hearing proceeded in their absence and the complainant built a case against her former employer in front of Equality Officer, Vivian Jackson.

According to the complainant’s uncontested evidence, she informed her employer that she was expecting her third child in November 2009. She alleged that her employer’s attitude towards, and treatment of, her worsened from this point. She had had a miscarriage in the summer of 2009 and, according to the complainant (Ms. M), her employer (Mr. W) responded to her November pregnancy news with the comment “Jesus Lisa, you don’t hang around”. The complainant gave evidence that a few weeks after this comment her employer again referenced her pregnancy but this time it was in front of clients and his comment shocked her. The complainant gave evidence that Mr. W implied to the clients that he was not happy that she was pregnant and stated that ‘she was meant to stop after two’. Maternity Leave

The complainant described an incident in January 2010 where she was involved in a car accident. She claimed that a doctor certified her as unfit for work for a week in order to ensure that she and her unborn baby were unharmed. Even though she did not have access to a vehicle for the period, the respondent told her that she was required to attend work the following Monday. Ms. M complied with her employer’s request because she was fearful of losing her job. In February 2010, Ms. M requested a meeting in order to discuss cover during her maternity leave - this was due to begin at the end of April 2010. Mr. W agreed to hire an employee during the period that Ms. M was due to be on her protected leave. The complainant was under the impression that the new hire would begin work on a fixed term contract, however, during the course of the interview the successful applicant, Ms. S, asked about the duration of the contract and, to the complainant’s surprise, Mr. W said that he was ‘not sure that Lisa will be coming back to work’. The complainant said that she had never implied that she would not return to work and, in fact, not returning was ‘undesirable from a personal and professional point of view and impossible from a financial perspective’. The complainant gave evidence that the respondent ‘froze her out’ – he undermined her with clients and changed arrangements regularly. He also began removing tasks from the complainant. Ms. M believes that this occurred because her employer no longer felt that, with three children, she would be committed to the company. The complainant demonstrated times where she had shown considerable commitment to the company in the past and said that the employer had no reason to believe that her commitment would diminish. The complainant sought a meeting with Mr. W prior to her leaving for her maternity leave – she wanted to discuss her remuneration and benefits during the leave. In the past, the employee had been allowed to keep her company phone and car during the leave and the employer also topped up her state maternity benefit so she continued to receive her normal monthly net income throughout her maternity leave. This time it was different – Mr. W only offered the complainant a top-up payment of €150 per month – far less than what was offered during previous leave periods. Ms. M accepted this. To her surprise, Ms. M was obliged to return her company car and phone for the duration of her leave on this occasion. Ms. M was due to complete her maternity leave at the end of January 2011 and in December 2010 she contacted her employer to give notice of her intention to return to work. She did not receive a response to this e-mail and so she e-mailed Ms. S, who had been hired to cover the period of maternity leave. Ms. S confirmed that Mr. W had received the complainant’s e-mail. Ms. S sent another e-mail on 6^th January 2011 requesting that Ms. M attend a meeting with Mr. W on 14^th January. At this meeting, Ms M was notified that her role of Financial Controller no longer existed in its previous format within the new company structure. Ms M was informed that the role was redundant and that another position was available to her as an alternative. The new position was a more junior role that not only incorporated additional hours but also a 40% reduction in pay. Ms M was not satisfied with this – she found it to be an unacceptable alternative to the Financial Controller role and demonstrated that her original role was not in fact redundant as MS. S continued to perform Ms. M’s original duties and was listed as the company’s Financial Controller on the company website. The complainant researched her position in light of the new role that her employer offered her as an alternative and realised that she was not obliged to accept the offer. The respondent offered Ms. M her original terms and conditions (including rate of pay and hours), however, the role that she was being asked to perform going forward was a clear demotion and a serious reduction in responsibility. She requested to return to her role as Financial Controller. Again it was expressed by the respondent that this role was redundant and he offered her 14 days to decide whether or not to take the new role of ‘Credit Control Manager’. Ms. M said that she was only happy to return to her original role and stated why the new offer was unacceptable in light of the fact that her original role clearly still existed. Mr. W wrote to Ms. M a number of days later rejecting her arguments and adding that, as she had not reported for duty, he considered her to have resigned. Dismissed

Vivian Jackson, Equality Officer, found that Ms. M had been subjected to a range of unlawful treatments. Her employer made it impossible for her to proceed wither pre maternity leave role and essentially dismissed her. The Equality Officer ordered that the respondent pay the complainant €80,000.00 in compensation for the discrimination inflicted on her.

By The HR Company Administrator|2017-01-02T10:59:55+00:00June 17th, 2015|Discrimination|0 Comments

How to Conduct an Effective Employee Communication Survey

Surveying employees is an effective first step in fixing communication barriers in an organisation. Even if there are no obvious problems, communication surveys can help get an organisation to the next level of performance. Benefits in conducting an employee communication survey and acting on the results include: • improved employee satisfaction • lower turnover • reduced absenteeism • less political infighting • greater levels of manager-worker trust • reduced defect rates • higher customer satisfaction A well-run communication survey can give you these benefits. However, a poorly conducted communication survey can have the opposite effect. Surveys badly planned, rolled-out and followed-up can actually increase employee cynicism and resistance to change. They can also increase employee turnover and absenteeism. This can negatively impact customer satisfaction and your bottom line. Employee Communication Survey Tips So, what do you need to consider before rolling out your survey? Here are some tips. Question types Include in your survey questions that require limited tick-the-box responses, such as Yes/No and Strongly Agree/Agree/Disagree/Strongly Disagree. Including these questions will allow you to perform quantitative analyses that you can use to compare results between different demographics and to use as a benchmark for future surveys. However, equally as important is the provision of free form space which affords employees the opportunity to elaborate on the feedback they have given elsewhere on the form and to discuss in detail anything that has not been covered in the other areas of the survey. A good idea is to run Focus Groups with a random sample of respondents after the survey forms have been collected and analysed. These discussion groups are invaluable in performing a sanity check on your results so far and in teasing out issues that have surfaced in the written survey. Anonymity Guarantee absolute anonymity for the people completing the survey and make this clear in the survey instructions. Some employees will either not complete the survey or give sanitised answers if they believe that their identity will be disclosed with their answers and comments. Employee Survey   Sample size Should you survey the whole organisation/department or a select group? Preferably, survey all employees as this gives everyone a sense of being listened to. If the organisation/department is excessively large or budget is tight, draw a random sample from each of the demographic groups that you will be reporting on. If your selection is not random, the communication survey results will not be representative and you will lose credibility with your employees. If a demographic group comprises 50 people or less, you will need to survey 100 percent of the people within that group. Mode of delivery If the people completing the survey are small in number and at a single location, then hardcopy distribution will not be a problem. As the number of respondents increases and the locations become more dispersed, more consideration will need to be given to electronic distribution. Think about putting the survey on a local intranet or internet web server. To make filling out the employee survey form easy for people, have it so that the form can be completed online. If this is not possible, either send the form by email or put it on an accessible server from which people can download it. If your survey respondents are not comfortable with technology, then be wary of online options and provide plenty of employee support if you decide to go down that road.   Inducements and Reminders Survey participation rates do not tend to be particularly high, typically ten percent or less. You can dramatically improve on this completion rate by conducting some simple follow-up. As you get closer to the communication survey cut-off date (of course, you will have publicised that date with your survey), send out an e-mail reminder or arrange for someone to call the respondents personally. Consider advertising a raffle for all survey participants - this will increase the participation rate (especially if it is a good prize). describe the image Distribute results Once the employee feedback results are in and analysed, distribute your findings first to your managers and then to employees. Withholding results from employees will only breed cynicism and distrust and will make getting a satisfactory response rate from your next survey all that more difficult. Break down your results into meaningful groups, such as by department or by location/site. The reporting groupings need to be small enough that people can identify with the group enough for a meaningful action plan to be developed. Be prepared for some kickback from defensive managers. Frank employee feedback is both confronting and jarring, especially for those managers not used to it. Use your best facilitation skills to deliver the key messages, or use a professional facilitator to perform this sensitive task. Follow-up and Rewards A survey conducted with no plan for action is not only a waste of resources but will leave employees asking why they bothered to give feedback to managers on how they felt. Work with each manager to construct an action plan that they agree with. Remember, it is the manager that will be implementing the communication plan, not you. Get back with each manager three or six months later to review how they are progressing with their communication plan and report the results to the organisation. As you see communication practices improve across the organisation, make sure that managers get rewarded.

By The HR Company Administrator|2017-01-02T11:00:09+00:00June 17th, 2015|Employee Communication|0 Comments

Bullying prevalent in Irish workplaces according to recent survey

  The results of a recent Europe-wide survey, which were reported on in TheJournal.ie’s article Irish workplaces among worst in Europe for bullying, highlighted worrying levels of bullying within companies in Ireland. According to the survey, Ireland is the 7^th worst country in Europe when it comes to workplace bullying with a significant 6% of employees claiming to experience it.    

Tom O’Driscoll, SIPTU’s Head of Legal Affairs, explained that “It can be physical abuse but it’s usually abusive name-calling, putting undue pressure on people, singling people out, commenting on their performance…” etc.

Bullying in the workplace is any recurring inappropriate conduct that undermines a person’s right to dignity at work. Bullying can be carried out by one person or by several people - it is aimed at an individual or a group where the objective is to make them feel inferior or victimised. Bullying can come in the form of a verbal or physical assault and can also take place over the internet – this is known as cyber bullying and can be performed via many methods - Mobile phones, social networking sites, emails and texts are all common vehicles for cyber bullying. Cyber bullying is becoming more and more prevalent in society. Keep in mind that harassment based on civil status, family status, sexual orientation, religion, age, race, nationality or ethnic origin, disability or membership of the Traveller community is considered discrimination. Harassment in the workplace is prohibited under the terms of the Employment Equality Acts. The Act of harassment - whether direct or indirect, intentional or unintentional - is unacceptable and should not be tolerated by any company. Any allegations should be dealt with seriously, promptly and confidentially with a thorough and immediate investigation. Any acts of harassment should be subject to disciplinary action up to and including dismissal. Any victimisation of an employee for reporting an incident, or assisting with an investigation of alleged harassment and/or bullying is a breach of Equality Legislation and should also be subject to disciplinary action. Dignity at work

Bullying or harassment isn’t always obvious – in fact it can come in many shapes and forms – some examples are: •Social exclusion or isolation •Damaging someone’s reputation through gossip or rumour •Any form of intimidation •Aggressive or obscene language or behaviour •Repeated requests for unreasonable tasks to be carried out Employers - Did you know that you can be held accountable for bullying or harassment in the workplace? ……..Not being aware of it does not get you off the hook! Under current Irish Employment Legislation (The Employment Equality Acts 1998-2011) companies are accountable when it comes to bullying and harassment in the workplace. It is vital for employers to be mindful of the legislation as companies are answerable for the actions of employees, suppliers and customers even in cases where the company is not aware that bullying or harassment is taking place. To defend itself; a company must illustrate how it did everything reasonably practicable to prevent bullying and/or harassment from taking place in the workplace. The company must also show that when an instance of bullying or harassment occurred the company took immediate, fair and decisive action. Dignity at work

There is a huge risk of exposure if companies do not adhere to the strict Regulations. Those found in violation of the Act may be liable for fines and in severe circumstances imprisonment on summary conviction. Companies can also end up paying out large sums in compensation. Sample award – In June 2013, a fast food company in Blackpool, Cork was forced to pay €15,000 after two employees were subjected to sexual harassment by another employee. An Equality Tribunal ruling found that a lesbian couple, who both worked for the restaurant in Cork, were forced to endure obscene remarks and queries about their relationship and sexuality from another employee at the branch. The Tribunal found that management at the restaurant failed in their duty to take the appropriate steps to protect the women. They failed in their responsibilities to their employees and consequently were instructed to pay €15,000 to the couple. Compensation

Under Irish Employment Legislation it is the duty of the employer to provide a workplace that is safe for lesbian women and gay men to be open about their sexuality. This is something that all employers need to pay close attention to. Bullying creates a very hostile work environment and can negatively affect employee performance – It can lead to disengagement and low levels of morale. It can also cause a company to lose key members of staff. Bullying can affect both the safety and the health of employees – this violates the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005. It is abundantly clear that it is in the best interest of all stakeholders to prevent bullying or harassment of any form in the workplace. Employers need to be vigilant and need to make more of an effort to consciously crack down on this type of activity. In order to avoid bullying and harassment an employer should include harassment-related policies and procedures in the Employee Handbook – A Dignity at Work Policy should be communicated clearly to employees. This will clarify what is expected of employees and what the protocol/repercussions are if bullying/harassment does occur. The Europe-wide survey found that females between the ages of 30 and 49 are most likely to be bullied at work. Males between the ages of 15 and 29 are the second most likely group to experience bullying. Women in the same age group are most likely to experience sexual harassment. Bullying in the workplace

In December 2013 the Immigrant Council of Ireland (ICI) brought our attention to a shocking statistic when it revealed that the number of racist incidents reported in Ireland in the first 11 months of 2013 had jumped 85% on the same period in 2012. The racism reported related to alleged discrimination, written harassment, verbal harassment and physical violence. A massive 20% of the reported incidents of racism occurred in the workplace. Racist Incidents

        The area of workplace bullying clearly requires immediate attention in Ireland.    

By The HR Company Administrator|2025-07-07T11:48:48+00:00June 17th, 2015|Bullying at work|0 Comments

What employers need to know about work permit Ireland
Gallery
What employers need to know about work permit Ireland

Employer Responsibilities

What employers need to know about work permit Ireland

  Employers, as you may be aware, the National Employment Right’s Authority (NERA) conducts thousands of inspections (many of which are unannounced) annually. It is within NERA’s remit to investigate your compliance with Irish Immigration and Employment Permit legislation.     Did you know that employers could be seriously penalised for employing individuals who do not have valid employment permits? • The Employment Permits Acts 2003 to 2006 make it a criminal offence for a foreign national to work without an employment permit. Employers are committing an offence themselves if they employ a foreign national without a valid work permit. • The Acts place an onus on the employer to carry out checks in order to be satisfied that a prospective employee does not require an employment permit, and, if he or she does, that they have obtained one. • NERA inspectors are authorised to exercise powers under the Employment Permit Acts. If, during an inspection, NERA finds evidence showing that an employee does not have a valid employment permit, both the employer and employee are advised of the need to correct the situation. They are also informed of the consequences of failing to do so. • An employer failing to rectify matters could be prosecuted. NERA commenced initiating proceedings under S.2 of the 2003 Act in 2012. • An Garda Síochána are also an enforcement authority under Employment Permits legislation with prosecution powers. Who needs an Employment Permit? According to the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, a non-EEA national (except in the cases listed below) requires an employment permit to take up employment in Ireland. The EEA comprises the Member States of the European Union together with Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein. Employment permit (or work permit) holders are only allowed to work for the employer and in the occupation named on the permit. If the holder of an employment permit ceases to work for the employer named on the permit during the permit’s period of validity, the original permit (along with the certified copy) must be returned immediately to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation. Citizens of non-EEA countries who do not require Employment Permits include:     • Non-EEA nationals in the State on a Work Authorisation/Working Visa   • Van der Elst Case The European Court of Justice delivered a judgement on the Van der Elst Case (Freedom to Provide Services) on 9 August, 1994. The Court ruled that in the case of non-EEA workers legally employed in one Member State who are temporarily sent on a contract to another Member State, the employer does not need to apply for employment permits in respect of the non-nationals for the period of contract.   • Non-EEA nationals who have been granted permission to remain in the State on one of the following grounds:   • Permission to remain as spouse or a dependent of an Irish/EEA national;   • Permission to remain as the parent of an Irish citizen;   • Temporary leave to remain in the State on humanitarian grounds, having been in the Asylum process. • Explicit permission from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform to remain resident and employed in the State • Appropriate business permission to operate a business in the State • A non-EEA national who is a registered student Swiss Nationals: In accordance with the terms of the European Communities and Swiss Confederation Act, 2001, which came into operation on 1 June, 2002, this enables the free movement of worker between Switzerland and Ireland, without the need for Employment Permits. It is imperative that every labour market opportunity is afforded to Irish and other EEA nationals in the first instance. This is also in accordance with EU obligations and recognises that Ireland's labour market is part of a much greater EEA labour market which affords a considerable supply of skilled workers. An interesting point to note is that work permits will not be considered for certain occupations. Since April 10^th 2013 occupations listed as ineligible for work permits are as follows: • Hotel, tourism and catering staff except chefs • Work riders – horseracing • Clerical and administrative staff • Drivers (including HGV drivers) • Nursery/crèche workers, child minders/nannies • General operatives and labourers • Operator and production staff • Domestic workers including carers in the home and child-minders* • Retail sales staff, sales representatives and supervisory or specialist sales staff** • The following craft workers and apprentice/trainee craft workers: bookbinders, bricklayers, cabinet makers, carpenters/joiners, carton makers, fitters - construction plant, electricians, instrumentation craftspeople, fitters, tilers - floor/wall, mechanics - heavy vehicles, instrumentation craftspersons, metal fabricators, mechanics - motor, originators, painters and decorators, plumbers, printers, engineers - refrigeration, sheet metal workers, tool makers, vehicle body repairers, machinists - wood, plasterers and welders * In exceptional circumstances an employment permit may be granted for a carer who is a medical professional caring for a person with a severe medical condition or for a carer who has a long caring relationship with a person with special needs where there are no alternative care options ** Specialist language support and technical or sales support with fluency in a non-EEA language in respect of those companies that have formal support from the State’s enterprise development agencies earning at least €27,000 a year may apply for a work permit.

By The HR Company Administrator|2025-07-07T10:24:23+00:00June 17th, 2015|Employer Responsibilities|0 Comments

A Significant Number of WRC Inspections are Unannounced!

NERA The National Employment Rights Authority (NERA) was first established on an interim basis in February 2007 with the aim of securing compliance with Irish Employment Legislation. NERA monitors employment conditions through its inspectors. It enforces compliance and seeks redress where any employment rights have been breached.   Since its establishment in 2007, the number of NERA inspectors has increased by more than 100%. These inspectors exchange information with the Department of Social Protection and the Revenue Commissioners. Inspectors are empowered to enter company premises and interview employees as well as employers. They can also examine employment records and can take statements before initiating legal proceedings.

Typically, a NERA investigation proceeds in the following way:

1) If the initial inspection finds Employment Legislation breaches the employer is instructed to take the appropriate steps to rectify the matter. 2) NERA sends a letter to request evidence that the employer is now compliant. 3) If the response is inadequate, the company is warned that any further breaches will be sent to NERA's legal services for prosecution. Then a follow-up inspection occurs.     *It is extremely important for employers to note that if there is a breach of the Protection of Young Persons (Employment) Act 1996, the employer is referred for prosecution directly after the first inspection. Employers should know that employees regularly complain to NERA about their employer’s adherence to Employment Legislation and their maintenance of employment records and so on. In order to pass a NERA inspection and to comply with Employment Legislation, employers are statutorily obliged to maintain a large number of records relating to their employees. Here is a list of the 10 most important records/details that an employer in Ireland must keep:

PPS Number, Name and Address of each employee
Terms of Employment for every employee
Individual job classifications for each employee
Commencement/termination dates
Payroll details
Copies of payslips
Hours of Work
Under 18 employee register (if applicable)
Public Holiday/Annual Leave entitlements received by each employee
Board/Lodging details if applicable

NERA inspectors are entitled to see all of these records, and more where relevant, during an inspection.

In the 6 month period between January and June 2013, NERA conducted 2,755 workplace inspections. A staggering 1,458 (53%) of these inspections were unannounced!

By The HR Company Administrator|2025-06-30T14:35:55+00:00June 17th, 2015|Inspections|0 Comments

Whistleblowing in Ireland

In light of the Garda whistleblowing issues that have been unfolding in recent weeks, we thought employers might find some information on whistleblowing useful. The Protected Disclosure Bill 2013, commonly known as the ‘Whistleblowers Bill’ was published on July 3rd 2013 by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Brendan Howlin, T.D. The Bill is to establish a comprehensive legislative framework protecting whistleblowers in all industries in Ireland. Whistleblowing The purpose of the Bill is to protect workers who raise concerns regarding wrongdoing (or potential wrongdoing) that they have become aware of one way or another in the workplace. The Bill will offer significant employment and other protections to whistleblowers if they suffer any penalties at the hands of their employer for coming forward with information of wrongdoing in their place of work. The Bill, which is due to be enacted shortly, closely reflects best practices in whistleblowing protection in developed nations around the world. According to Minister Howlin the Bill “should instil all workers with confidence that should they ever need to take that decisive step and speak-up on concerns that they have about possible misconduct in the workplace, they will find that society values their actions as entirely legitimate, appropriate and in the public interest”. Whistleblowing Some key elements included in the Bill are as follows: Compensation of up to a maximum of five years remuneration can be awarded in the case of an Unfair Dismissal that came about as a result of making a protected disclosure. This would be a massive step forward in Ireland’s attempt to match the standards set by other established nations. It is important to note that limitations relating to the length of service that usually apply in the case of Unfair Dismissals are set aside in the case of protected disclosures. As a result of this Bill, whistleblowers will benefit from civil immunity from actions for damages and a qualified privilege under defamation law. The legislation will provide a number of disclosure channels for potential whistleblowers and stresses that the disclosure, rather than the whistleblower, should be the focus of the attention. Protections for the whistleblower remain in place even where the information disclosed does not reveal any wrongdoing when examined. Deliberate false reporting, however, will not be protected. These measures, when enacted, should encourage more people to come forward, and feel comfortable doing so, when they become aware of (or suspect) any criminal activity, misconduct or wrongdoing in the workplace. The Seanad Final Stage debate on the Protected Disclosures Bill 2013 was held on the 20^th November 2013 and the Bill was passed by the Seanad. The Bill, which may be subject to minor changes, will soon be debated and passed by the Dáil. Once it is signed by President Michael D. Higgins, the Protected Disclosures Bill 2013 will come into operation and, according to Minister Howlin, he intends for the legislation to be “commenced immediately on its enactment”. Employer Responsibilities What should employers do? As it will apply to all employees in Ireland once enacted; employers should establish and clearly communicate a comprehensive ‘whistleblowing’ policy to ensure that staff are aware of and understand the provisions of the Protected Disclosures Bill. It is important that cultural issues and negative connotations surrounding whistleblowing are addressed within the company to ensure that employees adhere to the appropriate whistleblowing guidelines.

By The HR Company Administrator|2017-01-02T11:00:04+00:00June 17th, 2015|Employer Responsibilities|0 Comments

Data Protection Breaches in Ireland Dangerously High

The Data Protection Acts 1988 and 2003 provide rules that apply to the collection, use, disclosure and transfer abroad of information about individuals. The Acts cover the principals that companies must follow when processing personal data about employees as well as information about clients/residents.

The Acts also give individuals certain rights in relation to personal data that is held about them. If you as a company collect, host or process data about people on any type of computer or structured filing system, then you are considered a data controller under the Acts. Every company holding information about individuals should have a data protection policy in place and should ensure that all IT administrators and employees with access to personal/confidential information are fully trained on the rights and responsibilities associated with that access. Billy Hawkes, the Data Protection Commissioner, ensures that companies that keep personal data are in compliance with the Acts. The Commissioner has a range of enforcement powers to help guarantee that the provisions of the Acts are observed. The Commissioner can serve legal notices compelling data controllers to provide information needed to assist with his enquiries. He can also compel data controllers to implement provisions of the Acts in a particular prescribed manner. He may investigate complaints made by members of the public and can authorise officers to enter sites with the aim of inspecting the type of personal information kept as well as how it is processed and the security measures that the data controller has in place. Companies are required to co-operate fully with such data protection officers. Data Protection Policies

Data controllers who are found guilty of offences under the Acts can be fined up to €100,000 on conviction and may be ordered to delete all or part of their database. The Data Protection Commissioner publishes a report annually naming, in certain cases, data controllers who were investigated by his office. Civil sanctions may result where a person suffers any damage as a consequence of failures on the part of a data controller to meet his/her obligations. In November 2013 it was discovered that the personal information of more than 1,500,000 people was compromised by a major security breach at a Co. Clare based company. In an RTE Morning Ireland interview at the time, Mr. Hawkes admitted that “cyber-criminals have become extremely sophisticated and it can be quite difficult to actually identify that your system has been perpetrated.” This was one of the worst data breaches in Irish history. The Society for Chartered IT Professionals in Ireland, known as the Irish Computer Society (ICS), carried out a recent survey on data protection in Ireland and the results, which were published in January 2014, were astonishing. 256 Irish based companies were surveyed and a record number of data breaches were reported to have occurred in 2013. Findings revealed that one in two of the surveyed companies experienced a data breach during the last 12 months. In fact, more than 20% of the companies contacted by the ICS reported multiple breaches. These statistics mark a significant increase on last year’s figures when 43% of companies examined reported a breach. According to the results, one third of employees are not fully aware of data protection issues and many receive insufficient data protection training or, alarmingly, no relevant training whatsoever. Data Protection Breach

Several IT managers admitted that data protection policies are not implemented at all in their company or they are only partially adhered to. The survey has highlighted the need for companies to manage their data processing environment much more carefully and provide additional training for their IT administrators and all employees who have contact with personal information pertaining to employees/clients. According to the ICS survey, negligence on the part of employees accounted for 77% of the reported incidents. Hackers seeking to obtain data and unencrypted laptops were also cited as major threats. According to Fintan Swanton, Chairman of the Association of Data Protection Officers, “Clear policies and procedures are vital, with regular refresher training and timely reviews to ensure that staff are complying with the structures.” It is important for employers to be aware that new data protection legislation will require most organisations to appoint a Data Protection Officer.

By The HR Company Administrator|2017-01-02T11:00:03+00:00June 17th, 2015|Data Protection|0 Comments

Fears for Kerry jobs in pay dispute

Services Industrial Professional and Technical Union (SIPTU) held a secret ballot of its members at Liebherr Container Cranes in Killarney yesterday, 14th January 2014. SIPTU members voted to reject Labour Court proposals geared at resolving a long-term pay increase dispute with the Company dating back to 2009. Pay Dispute, Labour Court Liebherr Container Cranes Ltd., a member of the large family-owned German Company, Liebherr Group, was established in Killarney in 1958 and has been a significant direct and indirect employer in the area in recent years. The Company is one of the largest firms in Kerry and one of the largest of its kind in the country. The German company has warned that its commitment to the plant in Killarney has been weakened in recent months as a result of the on-going pay issues and the industrial action which forced them to send work from Killarney to Germany. Fears are now growing for jobs at the Company as Management admit to reviewing its operations in the region. Liebherr stated that a small number of employees have seriously compromised its future in Killarney. Based on the details of Towards 2016 Review and Transitional Arrangement, an agreement drawn up by the Company, a 2.5% pay increase was due to be implemented for employees in January 2009. The Company did not pay the expected increase and argued that payment would severely impact its competitiveness and limit its ability to preserve its headcount numbers in a time of economic hardship. The Company proposed to pay the increase due in three distinct phases beginning in 2012 in return for a number of concessions including cost-offsetting measures. Union members and the Company were unable to resolve the dispute at local level and it became the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. Agreement was not reached at this stage and, on the 28^th January 2011, the pay dispute was referred to the Labour Court. A Labour Court hearing was scheduled for, and took place on, the 2^nd May 2012. The Labour Court considered the submissions of all parties and a decision was made that further engagement was required if the claim was to be resolved before the Court. The Court recommended that the discussions/negotiations were to be facilitated by the Labour Relations Commission. LRC   As a result of the unresolved pay dispute, industrial action was served by SIPTU in November 2013. Workers at the plant implemented a ban on overtime and undertook a one-day work stoppage late in November. All industrial action was suspended on 28^th November when members of the union accepted an invitation to attend a hearing of the Labour Court on 4^th December 2013. In December 2013, the Labour Court recommended that the firm award the disputed 2.5% increase backdated almost two full years to its workers. The Court provided a list of recommendations to both sides. Liebherr said that, while the industrial action and the pay award had increased its cost base, they accepted the recommendation. SIPTU workers at the plant, however, voted on the 14^th January 2014 to reject the Labour Court proposals. The union was said to be dissatisfied with the proposal and wanted the 2.5% wage increase to be implemented on an unconditional basis.

By The HR Company Administrator|2017-01-02T11:00:03+00:00June 17th, 2015|Policies & Procedures|0 Comments

Employers reducing salaries without consent

If a salary reduction is imposed without consultation or employee agreement, an employee now only has three (rather than four) potential legal opportunities to seek redress from his or her employer. If an employee’s wages are cut his or her first option is to claim Constructive Dismissal under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1997-2007. Constructive Dismissal is the term used when an employee terminates his or her employment based on the conduct of the employer. In this instance, the employee must be able to prove that their position became unsustainable as a direct result of the involuntary reduction in pay. Secondly, where an employee’s salary is reduced, he or she has the opportunity to bring a trade dispute under the Industrial Relations Acts. The Industrial Relations Acts deal with disputes between employers and workers that are connected with the employment or non-employment, or the terms and conditions of or affecting the employment, of any person. Thirdly, if an employer cuts an employee’s pay, the employee could claim that their contract has been breached. Defending this could prove very costly for the employer. Furthermore, an injunction may be granted to prevent the contract breach/reinstate the original salary. Salary Reduction In the past employees whose wages were cut without prior consent had a fourth option. They had the opportunity to take a case (and were likely to succeed) under the Payment of Wages Act 1991. Claims in relation to a reduction in wages, however, may no longer be successful if taken under this Act as a result of a recent Employment Appeals Tribunal determination. The specific EAT case referenced here is an appeal of a Right’s Commissioner decision in the case of Santry Sports Clinic v 5 employees. The employees in the aforementioned case were claiming for an 8% reduction in their pay that was imposed between February and March 2010. Santry Sports Clinic stated that the reduction was essential. According to the employer, all employees received letters detailing the 8% reduction in advance and, while only 30% of employees agreed to the reduction via return letters, no one officially objected or stated that they would not accept the pay cut and so it was implemented as planned. The Employment Appeals Tribunal considered all evidence and representations made at the hearing as well as all other submissions made. The Tribunal noted the High Court decision in the case of Michael McKenzie and others and Ireland and the Attorney General and the Minister for Defence Rec. No. 2009. 5651JR. In paragraph 5.8 of this decision the Judge stated that “the Payment of Wages Act has no application to reductions as distinct from ‘deductions’.” The Tribunal followed the High Court decision on a point of law and, therefore, the appeal was successful and the decision of the Rights Commissioner was entirely overturned in the case of Santry Sports Clinic v 5 employees. Reducing employee's pay This case brought to light the fact that the Payment of Wages Act 1991 refers to “deductions” as opposed to “reductions” and, as a consequence, employees whose wages are reduced without prior consent are now unlikely to succeed if they opt to take a case against their employer under the Payment of Wages Act 1991. This is particularly significant for claims that are currently being processed by the Employment Appeals Tribunal. Employers need to remember that, although this option has essentially been closed off for employees as a result of the above-mentioned High Court decision and the EAT case, they still have several avenues open to them if they wish to take a claim where a reduction of wages has been imposed by the employer without prior consent.

By The HR Company Administrator|2025-07-07T13:45:01+00:00June 17th, 2015|Policies & Procedures|0 Comments

Force Majeure Leave in the Irish Workplace

There are several types of leave that an employee may be entitled to. Some forms of leave are statutory entitlements and some other forms are not. Maternity Leave, for instance, must be given to employees when they are pregnant. Some forms of leave are paid and others are not. This can depend on statutory obligations and on the terms and conditions set out in the Contract of Employment. Annual Leave is a statutory entitlement and it must be paid by the employer. Sick Leave, however, is not always paid by the employer (this depends on individual company policies). Force Majeure Leave is less commonly discussed. The purpose of Force Majeure Leave is to provide limited, paid leave to enable an employee to deal with family emergencies resulting from injury or illness of a close family member. Force Majeure Leave applies where the immediate presence of the employee is urgent and indispensable (essential). A close family member is defined as one of the following:

A child or adopted child of the employee
The husband/wife/partner (same or opposite sex) of the employee
A parent/grandparent of the employee
A brother/sister of the employee
A person to whom the employee has a duty of care (where he or she is acting in loco parentis)
A person in a relationship of domestic dependency with the employee
Persons of any other class (if any) as may be prescribed

By its nature, an employee will not usually be able to give notice of the need to take Force Majeure Leave. The employee should, however, inform the employer (in writing) of reasons for taking the leave as soon as is reasonable practicable. The employee should provide details regarding the need for the leave and should confirm who the leave was taken in respect of. Employers are obliged to keep a record of Force Majeure Leave taken by employees. Employees will be entitled to: - up to 3 days paid Force Majeure Leave in any consecutive 12 month period; or - up to 5 days in a 36 consecutive month period. Absence for part of a day is usually counted as a full day of Force Majeure Leave. Employees are entitled to receive pay for this type of leave. Employers can grant employees more than the number of days outlined above; however, they are not obliged to do so. Employees are protected against Unfair Dismissal for taking Force Majeure Leave or for proposing to take it. Death is not covered under Force Majeure Leave – Leave taken when a death occurs falls under Compassionate Leave and this tends to depend on employee contracts as well as custom and practice within the workplace.

By The HR Company Administrator|2017-01-02T11:00:09+00:00June 17th, 2015|Policies & Procedures|0 Comments