On 16 October 2025 the Economy Minister, Dr Caoimhe Archibald launched a three-year Skills Action Plan to help Northern Ireland develop the skilled workforce needed to support economic growth. The plan outlines how the Department for the Economy will work with businesses, education providers, and communities to improve access to training and ensure people have the skills to succeed in a changing economy.

What the Plan Aims to Do

 The action plan focuses on three main areas:

1. Working together with industry and education partners to develop better ways of delivering skills.
2. Improving the current system by building on successful programmes and institutions.
3. Creating an inclusive and forward-looking skills environment that helps people from all backgrounds reach their potential.

These efforts support the Minister’s broader Economic Vision, which aims to create more good jobs, promote regional balance, raise productivity, and reduce carbon emissions.

Why this matters to Employers

 Although employment levels are high, many businesses are struggling to find workers with the right skills. The Skills Barometer shows there’s a shortage of skilled labour across all sectors. At the same time, new industries and technologies are driving demand for highly skilled workers, and economic inactivity remains a challenge.

To address this, the Department is investing in programmes like Skill Up and Step Up, expanding Apprenticeships, and developing a new Careers Portal. The expansion of Ulster University’s Magee campus to 10,000 students is also expected to boost skills and drive growth in the North-West.

Next Steps: Reform and Collaboration

 The next phase of the plan focuses on reforming how skills are developed and delivered. A sector-based approach will be used to better support the needs of different industries, building on successful models like the Digital Skills and Green Skills Action Plans.

The Skills Council will continue to play a key role in connecting stakeholders and reducing fragmentation in the system. Its sub-groups will be reviewed to ensure they reflect the needs of employers and communities.

The Department will also work with Invest NI to improve how skills provision is communicated and aligned with economic priorities. Efforts will be made to support Irish Medium learners and ensure fair access to qualifications.

Funding and Accountability

 Delivering the plan depends on securing funding. The upcoming Westminster Spending Review and proposed multi-year budget will be critical. The Department will also continue to explore alternative funding sources, such as PeacePlus, the Shared Island Fund, and Investment Zones.

Progress will be tracked through regular reporting, with a formal update due by September 2026. A new evaluation strategy will help measure the impact of skills programmes and ensure they support the goals of the Skills Strategy.

 Looking Ahead

 There is optimism across government and industry about the potential of this Skills Action Plan to deliver meaningful change. However, many of its goals are based on long-term achievements that will take time to realise. Success will depend not only on sustained investment and collaboration, but also on the ability to adapt to changing economic conditions and workforce needs. Employers, educators, and policymakers will need to remain engaged and responsive as the plan unfolds.

The Department for Communities has published its Response To The Public Consultation on Gender Pay Gap Information Regulations. This consultation ran from November 2024 to February 2025 and gathered views on how gender pay gap reporting should work in Northern Ireland.

There were a total of 15 questions and the key areas covered in the consultation. In summary:

• Who must report: All employers across all sectors (public, private, and voluntary sectors) who are above the threshold must report – however disappointingly the Department has yet to decide the threshold. This is likely to be either 250 (in line with UK) or 100 in line with the Pay Transparency Directive
• How to calculate pay gaps: Department has decided that ONS definition of pay and the standard methodology (currently uses gross median hourly earnings excluding overtime when calculating the Gender Pay and it is recognised as the standardised methodology used in UK should be adopted.
• How often to report: Employers will be required to report annually.
• Where and how to publish: Employers will be required to publish the report on their website and the Department will also explore having central location to report as in the UK.
• Action plans: Employers will be required to publish plans to address any pay gaps.
• Ethnicity and Disability: I The Department does not believe ethnicity and disability pay gap reporting can be enforced under current Gender Pay Gap Regulations, as employers are not legally required to collect this data and disclosure is voluntary. For now, reporting on these areas will not be required, but the Department will monitor progress on the UK Equality Bill before making further decisions.
• Responsibility: Consensus is that Equality Commission Northern Ireland’s existing role in equality and fair employment makes it well positioned and should take on this responsibility.
• Compliance: Department is still considering the appropriate sanctions and may focus first on encouraging compliance, with penalties scaled based on the size of the organisation.

The Department received 45 responses (41 of which were viable) and has used this feedback to shape its final policy proposals.

When: The Department aims to introduce the Regulations to give effect to Gender Pay Gap reporting as soon as possible after the Good Jobs Employments Rights Bill receives Royal Assent.

This is not likely to happen until 2027 and therefore the first reports will be in 2028.

Interesting The Department is carefully considering how the EU Pay Transparency Directive may influence future changes. The Pay Transparency Directive requires businesses over 100 workers to report on their Gender Pay Gap information.

Whilst it is still unclear how the Pay Transparency Directive will apply in Northern Ireland. Both the Equality Commission and the Human Rights Commission for Northern Ireland believe that, under the Windsor Framework’s dynamic alignment, most obligations under Pay Transparency Directive should be adopted and implemented.

Summary of Responses to the Questions

Q 1 – Do you agree that the threshold of 250 employees is also appropriate for Northern Ireland? If not, what do you think is an appropriate threshold? 

A threshold of 250 employees is used in England, Scotland, and Wales.

38% of respondents agreed that 250 employees is the right threshold.

Others felt it was too high, noting that only 0.4% of employers in Northern Ireland have more than 250 staff.

However, those larger employers account for over half of all employees in Northern Ireland. Lowering the threshold to 100 employees would include nearly 10% more workers.

The Information Commissioner’s Office supported having a clear threshold to protect employee privacy and ensure compliance with data protection laws.

As stated above the Department is considering the potential impact of the EU Pay Transparency Directive which applies to EU Member States. The EU Pay Transparency Directive to report for companies with 100+ employees but allows smaller employers to report voluntarily.

The Department is still considering the best threshold and will factor in developments from the EU Directive. The final regulations will be introduced after the Good Jobs Employment Rights Bill becomes law.

Q 2. Do you agree with this aspect of the legislation, i.e. the scope should include all sectors?

94% of respondents agreed that all sectors (public, private, and voluntary) should be included. Although Northern Ireland has the lowest gender pay gap in the UK, the Department believes there are still differences that need to be addressed:

The Department agrees that all sectors should be included in the Regulations

Q 3 Do you agree that this methodology should be used?

The UK currently uses gross median hourly pay (excluding overtime) as the standard method. 74% of respondents agreed, saying it would help ensure consistency and allow comparisons across the UK.

The Department agrees that using a standardised method is important to keep reporting clear and consistent with the rest of the UK.

Q 4 Do you agree that we use the Office for National Statistics (ONS) definition of calculating ‘pay’?

81% of respondents agreed, saying it would help keep data consistent across the UK.

The Department agrees that using the ONS definition is the right approach. It ensures consistency and comparability with UK data. The final Regulations will clearly explain what types of pay must be included—and what should be excluded—when calculating gender and bonus pay gaps.

Q 5 Do you agree with the proposal to use mean and median figures?

The Department agreed that the standard method used by ONS to calculate mean and median gender pay gaps should be adopted. 83% of respondents agreed, saying it would help ensure consistency and allow comparisons across the UK.

Employers should expect to use this method when reporting gender pay gaps.

Q6 For employers that will be within the scope of these Regulations, can you currently calculate Gender Pay Gap figures from your systems?

73% said yes.

Q 7 – Do you agree with the proposal to use the specified snapshot date when calculating gender pay information?

The Department asked whether a fixed snapshot date—5 April—should be used to calculate gender pay gap figures. 25 respondents agreed, while 13 disagreed.

Some disagreed due to concerns about Easter holidays affecting pay patterns, or that a single date doesn’t reflect seasonal or part-time work, especially for women.

Many suggested using average earnings over a longer period, such as three months.

A few supported the UK approach, which uses two snapshot dates:

• 31 March for most public sector employers
• 5 April for private, voluntary, and other public sector employers

In Ireland, employers choose a snapshot date in June, and report based on the previous 12 months. The Department now supports using two snapshot dates, in line with the rest of the UK. This will help ensure consistency and allow for direct comparisons between Northern Ireland and other UK regions.

Q 8 – Do you think the Regulations should specify where the employer publishes their Gender Pay Gap information?

Many suggested publishing the data on both the employer’s website and a central Government website. The key message was that the information should be easy to find, transparent, and consistent.

• In the UK, employers publish gender pay gap data on a central Government website.
• In Ireland, employers publish it on their own website or in another accessible way and must keep it available for 3 years.

The Department has decided that employers will be required to publish gender pay gap data on their own website (if they have one). The Department is also exploring the option of a central Government website for annual reporting, similar to the rest of the UK.

Q 9: Do you agree that the publication of Gender Pay Gap information will encourage employers to take action to close the Gender Pay Gap?

78% of respondents agreed it would help drive action. The Department agrees that publishing the data is important but believes employers should also create action plans to help close the gap.

Q 10: Do you agree that employers should publish this information on an annual basis?

The Department confirms that annual reporting will be required in Northern Ireland.

Q 11 – Do you have any comments on providing Gender Pay Gap information relating to a workers (a) ethnicity and / or (b) disability?

Most responses supported the idea in principle. However, several concerns were raised:

• No agreed definitions or standard methods for measuring ethnicity and disability pay gaps
• Employees may be reluctant to disclose this information
• Risk of identifying individuals, especially in small teams
• GDPR and privacy concerns
• Data may be unreliable or incomplete
• Employers would need clear legal guidance to collect and report this data

Currently, UK and Ireland do not require employers to report ethnicity or disability pay gaps. The UK Government is considering introducing this through the upcoming Equality (Race and Disability) Bill, which may apply to employers with over 250 employees.

Department supports the idea but does not believe it can be enforced under current Gender Pay Gap Regulations. Employers are not legally required to collect ethnicity or disability data, and employees can choose not to disclose it. The Department will monitor developments in the UK Equality Bill before making further decisions. This means that ethnicity and disability reporting will not be required initially.

Q 12 – Do you agree that employers should produce and publish action plans?

In the UK, action plans are not currently mandatory, but the Government is considering introducing them.

In Ireland, employers must publish a statement explaining their gender pay gap and what steps they’re taking to reduce it.

The Department has decided that employers will be required to produce and publish action plans. The Department will provide guidance on:

• What to include in the plan
• How often it should be updated
• Where it should be published
• Who it should be shared with

Q 13 – In your opinion, which body / organisation should be responsible for monitoring and enforcing the Gender Pay Gap?

Most respondents said the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland (ECNI) is the right body. In the UK, this role is handled by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC). In Ireland, enforcement powers are shared between the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (IHREC) and the Workplace Relations Commission.

The Department agrees that ECNI should take on this role in Northern Ireland. ECNI already monitors public sector equality duties and fair employment, making it well suited to oversee gender pay gap compliance.

Q 14 If you are an employer, what is your assessment of the costs to your business of conducting gender pay analysis and publishing the information?

As Gender Pay Gap Reporting will be a legal requirement for employers above the set threshold. Businesses must ensure their systems can produce the necessary data.

Q 15. What sanctions, other than an offence, do you believe would be appropriate if an employer fails to comply with these Regulations?

Some felt no fines should be imposed and suggested the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland (ECNI)investigate non-compliance.

Others proposed:

• Fines, especially for larger organisations
• Public naming of non-compliant employers
• Support and guidance to help employers meet requirements
• Formal warnings and mandatory training for initial failures
• Stronger penalties for repeated or serious breaches, such as:
• Restrictions on public contracts or funding
• Possible action against directors

The Department is still considering the appropriate sanctions and may focus first on encouraging compliance, with penalties scaled based on the size of the organisation.

2025 Employment Law & HR Conference 2025: Supporting Employers in a time of Change

Our Annual Employment Law & HR Conference was held on 9 September 2025. This was a sold-out event where we were joined by employers from across all sectors in Northern Ireland.

Our Conference ethos is always to share knowledge and information in a practical an accessible way. Employers come away not only with valuable and relevant learnings, but also with the tools and understanding of how to put these into practice. We covered a wide variety of topics including legislative developments, case law, soft skills and much more.

The Minister for the Economy

We were delighted to be joined by the Minister for the Economy who opened the Conference with a short address on the Good Jobs Bill. The Minister discussed the importance for both employees and employers that good jobs are created in Northern Ireland. Her message was clear, good jobs are central to a thriving economy, and employers have a vital role to play.

We thanked the Minister before she headed off for the first day back in the Assembly following the summer recess.

Policy in Focus: The Good Jobs Bill

Michelle McGinley, Director of Legal & Policy, then guided delegates through the Department for the Economy’s Response to the Good Jobs Public Consultation and what the Department has decided to take forward. Michelle considered each of the four Themes:

• Theme A: Terms of Employment
• Theme B: Pay and Benefits
• Theme C: voice and Representation
• Theme D: Work-Life Balance

Whilst the Department has indicated the proposals it intends to take forward, some of the finer detail around how they will operate is yet to be decided. The proposal to take forward a general right for trade union access sparked lively and important conversations throughout the day.

Tackling Sexual Harassment

Sara Plower, Employment Lawyer, raised critical awareness around sexual harassment in the workplace, offering practical insights into how businesses can prevent incidents and respond effectively. The session was a timely reminder of the importance of proactive policies and a culture of respect.

Case Law review

Kathryn O’Lone, Senior Employment Lawyer, Head of ROI and Business Improvement, delivered two compelling reviews of recent case law. This included the impact of the Supreme Court judgment in For Women Scotland and the Court of Appeal ‘s nuanced decision in Higgs v Farmor, which explored how employers can balance competing views in the workplace.

Negotiation Strategies That Work

Enda Young, founder and CEO of the Centre for Negotiation and Leadership led a highly engaging and thought-provoking session on practical negotiation strategies for employers—a skill increasingly vital in today’s evolving workplace landscape.

Enda is running a course on negotiation at the Employers Federation office on 15 October 2025.

Diversity & Inclusion in Action

Judith Gillespie CBE, Co-Chair of the Diversity Mark Assessment Panel, and Christine White Director Diversity Mark explored the value of inclusive workplaces, highlighting why diversity and inclusion are more important than ever in building resilient, forward-thinking organisations and in retaining talent.

Panel Session

Karen Moore, Senior Lawyer, Head of Training (NI & ROI), hosted and organised the event, and also led a dynamic panel session reflecting on the morning’s discussions and the feedback from our digital polls. Enda Young and Christine White contributed to the panel; they were joined by Michael Neill, HR Manager: Industrial Relations, Musgrave, and Aileen Hoey, HR Director, Terex GB. The panel tackled key questions and offered fresh perspectives on issues including: positive working relationships between employers and trade unions; risk assessing the potential for sexual harassment in the workplace; and DEI.

Good Work Charter Preview

Elaine Clarke, Director of Employment Relations Services Labour Relations Agency,  shared an overview of the proposed Good Work Charter, offering an insight into what’s ahead for employers and employees alike.

Energy, Engagement & a Touch of Golf

The atmosphere throughout the day was full of energy – lots of networking, meaningful engagement, and even a few spot prizes and a touch of golf-themed fun to keep spirits high.

Thank You to Our Exhibitors & all Attendees

A heartfelt thank you to our exhibitors: Autism NI, NOW Group, The Labour Relations Agency, Employers For Childcare, Include Youth, and Quantum HR™—your presence added real value to the day.

And finally, to all the employers who joined us: your continued engagement means the world.

It’s a privilege to support you, and we never take your support for granted.

ZHC-paper-for-NI-Employers-Federation

As part of “voice and representation” under the Good Jobs Employment Rights Bill, the Department for the Economy is proposing to strengthen the role of trade unions.

To do this the Department plans to introduce a new right of trade union access to workplaces. This new proposed right of access will apply to all workplaces whether a trade union is currently recognised or not.

Right of Access in New Zealand

Under New Zealand’s Employment Relations Act 2000 (Sections 19–25), trade union representatives have a legal right to access workplaces during working hours for a range of purposes including: supporting members with employment-related issues; promoting union membership; and ensuring compliance with employment legislation. This access is automatic when a collective agreement is in force or is being negotiated for the work done at that site. In other cases, union representatives must seek employer consent which cannot be unreasonably withheld. Employers are required to respond to access requests promptly—by the next working day—and if no response is given within 2 working days, consent is deemed to have been granted.

Even when consent is not required, union representatives must comply with specific conditions. They must enter at reasonable times, follow health, safety, and security procedures, and act in a manner that respects normal business operations. Upon arrival, they are expected to notify the employer of their presence, provide identification and the reason for their visit. If the employer cannot be located despite reasonable efforts, the representative must leave a written notice detailing their identity, union affiliation, time, date, and purpose of entry. These protocols are designed to balance union access with operational integrity and workplace safety.

There are limited circumstances under which access may be denied. These include: national security concerns; religious exemptions (supported by a certificate under Section 24); and situations where no employees are union members and the workforce is fewer than 20 people. Employers who deny access must provide written reasons, and penalties may apply for breaches of the access provisions. The legislation aims to ensure fair and reasonable access for unions while safeguarding employers’ rights to manage their premises and maintain operational continuity.

Your views

We are now seeking employers’ views on the Department’s plans.

Your views will help shape the operational details of how increased trade union access might work in practice if brought into law. The Department has stated that the right will come in (subject to Executive approval).

We are seeking your views on a number of areas, including:

1. Preferred methods for unions to request access (written, verbal, or other)
2. Appropriate points of contact within a business (owner, HR, etc.)
3. Reasonable timeframes for acknowledging and arranging access (e.g. 5 working days vs. New Zealand’s 2-day standard)
4. Scope of access—whether limited to common areas or negotiated case-by-case
5. Digital access protocols, including employee consent and communication limits
6. Grounds for denying access and whether these should be legislated
7. Coordination of multiple union requests to avoid operational disruption
8. Enforcement mechanisms, including potential penalties for non-compliance

It will be important that any new obligations placed on employers are proportionate, clearly defined, and sensitive to the realities of running a business. Your input will help ensure that any final legislation (if passed by the Executive) deals with the practical constraints faced by employers. If you have any comments, or if you are interested in helping us to respond to more detailed questions, please contact info@eefni.org

The Irish government has confirmed a further delay to the implementation of pensions auto-enrolment, pushing the new proposed start date to 1 January 2026. This marks the third delay since the scheme was first proposed in 2018, that had an original implementation date of 2022.

The scheme, known as My Future Fund, was previously set to launch on 30 September 2025, but Minister for Social Protection Dara Calleary stated that the delay would allow businesses and payroll providers more time to prepare while aligning the system with the standard tax year.

Key Details of My Future Fund:

• Eligibility: Workers aged 23-60, earning €20,000+, and not already in a pension scheme.
• Contributions: Starting at 1.5%, rising to 6% over a decade.
• Employer Matching: Employers contribute an equal amount to employees.
• State Top-Up: The government will add €1 for every €3 saved by employees.
• Opt-Out & Re-Enrolment: Employees can opt out after six months, but will be re-enrolled every two years.

Concerns from Businesses:

While the scheme is expected to benefit over 800,000 workers, many employers have raised concerns over costs and the lack of clear guidance on how the system will be implemented practically.

If they have not already done so, Members  should start preparing for the auto-enrolment pension scheme. Some measures include:

1. Understanding the Requirements– Employers must match employee contributions, starting at 1.5% and rising to 6% over a decade.
2. Assessing Financial Impact– Businesses should budget for the additional costs and consider how it affects payroll expenses.
3. Reviewing Existing Pension Schemes– If a company already offers a pension, it must ensure it meets the qualifying criteria to exempt employees from auto-enrolment.
4. Updating Payroll Systems– Employers need to ensure their payroll software can handle automatic deductions and contributions.
5. Communicating with Employees– Workers may have questions about opt-out options, contribution rates, and long-term benefits.
6. Preparing for Compliance– The scheme will be overseen by the National Automatic Enrolment Retirement Savings Authority (NAERSA), and businesses must comply with its regulations.

We previously provided a detailed update to members on the requirements of the scheme which can be accessed here ROI Autumn 2023 Newsletter – Employers Federation Northern Ireland

We will continue to update Members on the implementation of the ‘My Future Fund’ scheme and any further delays to the proposed commencement  date.

NORTHERN IRELAND DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMY PUBLISH RESPONSE TO GOOD JOBS/  EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS BILL PUBLIC CONSULTATION

On Monday 28 April 2025, the Department for Economy (DfE) published its response to the public consultation on the Good Jobs/Employment Rights Bill for Northern Ireland that closed on 30 September 2024.

According to Economy Minister, Dr Caoimhe Archibald, this marks the most significant update to employment law since the Good Friday Agreement. The Department’s response outlines proposals for new laws (including the Employment Bill and secondary legislation), statutory codes of practice, and guidance, based on 192 responses received during the Consultation.

A number of key documents have been published by the Department:

1.    Way Forward (34 pages) and

2.     Public Consultation Response” (260 pages)

3.    19 Impact Assessments

All these documents can be accessed from the home page of Good Jobs Employment Rights Bill Public Consultation Response

The Headline Proposals include:

• Ending zero hour contracts
• Enhancing protections for agency workers
• Ending abuse of fire & rehire tactics
• Ensuring workers receive all tips
• Modernising the trade union framework
• Making it easier to attain flexible working
• Enhancing rights to family leave including carer’s leave, neonatal leave & pay

These Headlines will, of course, be of particular concern to Employers who are already operating very challenging economic conditions.

Some Key Points:

The Consultation was divided into four main Themes and we have set out some of the proposed changes under each theme below:

THEME A: Terms of Employment

1. Exploitative zero-hour contracts will be abolished and replaced with a banded-hour model similar to that in the Republic of Ireland. This is different to the proposals in place in GB.

Workers on zero and low hours contracts will have the power to request a banded contract, guaranteeing a number of hours that reflect patterns of work, most likely over a 26-week period. Exclusivity clauses will be banned.

2. Zero and low hours employees will require reasonable notice of shifts and compensation for shifts cancelled or curtailed at short notice, with further consultation planned for the details.
3. Employee status (that is keeping the 3 categories of employee, worker and self employed) given its complexity and interaction with tax regime will be reviewed to align with the position in Great Britain.
4. Dismissal and re-engagement (fire and rehire) will be banned, in line with the UK Government’s proposals in the GB Employment Relations Bill. New laws will be introduced to make it automatically unfair to dismiss and re-engage an employee where the reason is to effect a change in employees’ terms of conditions unless the business is in financial difficultly.
5. Agency workers will have Day 1 rights to a Key Information Document, and employees will have Day 1 rights to written statements (mirroring GB practices). The right to a written statement of particulars and itemised payslips will also be extended to workers.
6. The Swedish Derogation / Pay between Assignment model for agency workers will be abolished.

THEME B: Pay and Benefits:

7. Employees will have the right to an itemised payslip showing hours worked aligned to the position in GB.
8. The holiday pay reference period will be extended to 52 weeks again aligning with GB.
9. A statutory Code of Practice on the “Right to Disconnect” will be introduced which is expected to be similar to the Code issued in the Republic of Ireland. The Minister plans to keep the effectiveness of a Code under review and consider if the right needs embodied in law.
10. While there will be no additional record-keeping requirements to demonstrate compliance with the Working Time Regulations, new guidance will be introduced.

 THEME C: Voice and Representation:

11. Trade unions will have a right of access to workplaces including digital access. This includes right to access to: promote union benefits; engaging with members; negotiating with employers. with guidance outlining engagement rules.

It is intended that employers would not be able to unreasonably withhold access to workplaces from trade union officials. However, such access will not be automatic and will require adherence to certain provisions such as only entering during reasonable times and in compliance with health and safety and security arrangements on site.

12. The statutory recognition threshold for trade unions will be reduced from 21 to 10 employees. However, the notice period for industrial action will remain at seven days.
13. Laws enabling e-balloting will be brought forward.
14. Thresholds will be lowered for trade union recognition and for Information & Consultation Agreements.
15. Collective sectoral bargaining (or collective sectoral agreements) the Department will work with the Labour Relations Agency regarding these.
16. A Code of Practice will focus on facilitating workplace relationships and minimum set of expected behaviours as to how all parties should engage with each other, with reference to the Code in place in New Zealand.
17. Protections for employees participating in official industrial action will be extended by removing the current 12-week protection period and eliminating any concluding time limits.
18. Disappointingly, no changes will be made to TUPE regulations at this stage due to the Department’s view that, in light of the complexities of the legislation, further engagement would be necessary. The Department will maintain a watching brief on any planned changes in GB.

THEME D: Work-Life Balance:

19. Employees will have Day 1 rights to flexible working, with two requests allowed per year and no obligation on the employee to set out how the request could be accommodated (matching GB policy).
20. Carer’s leave will be introduced, allowing one week of unpaid leave initially, with provisions for statutory paid leave to be introduced in the future (matching GB policy).
21. A new statutory right to Neonatal Leave and/or Pay will be introduced, up to a maximum of 12 weeks (aligned to position in GB)
22. Enhanced redundancy protection will be extended to 18 months post-birth (in line with GB practices).
23. Paternity leave will become a day-one right and can be taken within the first 52 weeks. This leave can be taken as a single block of two weeks or two separate blocks of one week.

Time line

These proposals will now be brought to the Executive for their approval and will be scrutinised by the Committee for the Economy. Any policies that are agreed by the Executive will then be translated into a Bill which the Department hopes to introduce to the Assembly early in 2026. The Department has stated that newly introduced rights will be implemented on a staged basis to ensure stakeholders have time to prepare for the changes.

We will keep Members updated on any developments and if you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact the Legal Team.

Supreme Court defines ‘Woman’ for purposes of Equality Act 2010 as a biological female

On 16 April 2025 the UK Supreme Court (SC) issued a unanimous decision that clarifies the legal definition of a woman under the Equality Act 2010 (EA). The landmark decision determined that when a ‘woman’ is referred to in the EA it refers strictly to a biological female. In doing so the SC rejected an interpretation that ‘woman’ includes a transgender woman with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC).

Background

The Gender Recognition Act 2004 (GRA) is a UK wide law that applies in Northern Ireland and allows transgender persons to legally change their gender. Under the GRA, a person can apply for a GRC which legally recognises their acquired gender and enables them to update official documents such as their birth certificate. To apply for a GRC a person must provide evidence of gender dysphoria, live in their acquired gender for at least two years, and make a statutory declaration of intent to live permanently in that gender.

The case before the SC originated from a decision taken by the Scottish Government that, when aiming to increase female representation on public sector boards, the definition of a ‘woman’ would include transgender women with a GRC. For Women Scotland, a women’s rights group, argued that the definition of woman should be limited to those born biologically female; they unsuccessfully challenged the Scottish Government’s decision in two lower courts, and the SC decision has therefore had the final say on the matter.

 The Supreme Court Judgment

There has been a lot of commentary since the decision was handed down, and it is important to remember that the SC’s task was to determine the definition of a ‘woman’ when applying and interpreting the EA. The decision focuses on statutory interpretation and is not a personal opinion or social commentary on transgender status.

The SC handed down an 88-page judgment that is highly detailed and technical and that ultimately finds that a ‘woman’ under the EA 20 refers exclusively to biological females.

In summary the SC’s reasoning focused on the following points:

1. Clarity in law and rejecting ‘variable’ definitions – legal definitions must be coherent and consistently applied; the SC stated sex-based language must be interpreted consistently throughout the EA. However if the definition of ‘woman’ was wider than a biological female different definitions of ‘woman’ would have to be applied depending on what section of the EA was being considered to ensure the legislation continued to operate effectively in practice;
2. Biological basis of pregnancy and maternity – terms related to pregnancy and maternity protections can only apply to biological females;
3. Avoiding two-tiered protection – a system whereby only those trans persons with a GRC receive enhanced protections would be deemed unworkable and create a sub-group of trans persons i.e. those with a GRC having enhanced rights compared to those trans persons without a GRC.
4. Existing protections for transgender people – the judgment affirmed that transgender individuals already receive protection under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. Trans individuals, regardless of GRC status, remain protected against discrimination and harassment and they can also still claim sex-based discrimination on the basis that they are perceived as female.

Implications and Commentary

The decision has far-reaching consequences for gender definitions within UK equality law. It impacts policy, public services and workplace protections, and is already sparking significant debate across legal, political, and social spheres. Whilst some will welcome the clarity, others will express concern about the impact on transgender inclusion.

The EA does not apply in Northern Ireland where sex discrimination laws are governed by the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 and the Sex Discrimination (Gender Reassignment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1999. Furthermore, the definition of ‘gender reassignment’ differs in Northern Ireland compared to GB as our Regulations require individuals to be transitioning under medical supervision to qualify for protection. Despite these differences, as the GRA applies in Northern Ireland and the Sex Discrimination Order reflects the precursor to the EA in GB, we strongly expect that biological sex will similarly be recognised in Northern Ireland law and the Courts and Tribunals in this jurisdiction will apply the SC decision.

Interim guidance

On 25 April 2025, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) released interim guidance to address the practical implications of the UK Supreme Court judgment in the case of For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers. This update offers information for employers across the UK navigating changes in equality legislation whilst awaiting the updated guidance and Code.

The EHRC plans to submit an updated Code of Practice to the UK Government by the end of June 2025 for ministerial approval. To inform this update a public consultation will run in mid-May 2025 for two weeks, focusing solely on the practical implications of the SC decision rather than its legal interpretation.

In NI the Equality Commission has also stated that it intends to publish new formal guidance in June 2025 and has advised they will also conduct a short consultation with interested parties beforehand. The Equality Commission has indicated that their initial view is that the judgment is likely to be deemed by our industrial tribunals and courts to be highly persuasive and, consequently, it is likely to be followed by the industrial tribunals and courts here when they are considering cases where similar issues arise, e.g. cases of alleged sex or gender reassignment discrimination contrary to the SDO.

Preparing for compliance: Employer Actions

Until the updated guidance is issued, we recommend employers take the following steps:

1. Facility provision:

Under separate Workplace Health, Safety and Welfare legislation, employers are required to provide sufficient single-sex toilets and single-sex washing/changing facilities where needed. Broadly speaking, these must be separated by sex except where they are contained in separate lockable rooms.

The SC decision has clarified that sex means biological sex, therefore (subject to any forthcoming guidance) the logical application of the decision is that only biological women are permitted to use the female facilities, and only biological men are permitted to use the male facilities; trans persons will be required to use the facilities of their birth sex and not their acquired gender.

Currently there is no legal obligation on employers to provide gender neutral facilities but there are calls for such spaces to be provided where possible.

It is currently the case that it is inappropriate to require transgender people to use the disabled facilities as these are for disabled persons. Updated and clear guidance on facility provision will be important for employers.

2. Policy review: ensure workplace policies refer to biological sex and gender reassignment accurately (rather than just gender);

3. Education and staff training: the SC decision does not mean that trans persons lose protections in the workplace; trans people continue to be protected from unlawful discrimination and harassment.

The SC decision undoubtedly generates strong opinions from/on behalf of the trans community and also from/on behalf of those who hold gender critical beliefs. Both are protected groups under our equality legislation (transgender status and philosophical belief respectively). Managers should be alert and responsive to any provocative and disrespectful behaviours. Employees should also understand that no protected group has overriding rights over others and training on dignity at work should be provided or updated as necessary;

4. Data Collection: Differentiate between biological sex and trans identity in demographic reporting.

SPRING 2025 LEGISLATIVE UPDATE

The Equality (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2024

On 15th January 2025, the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth introduced the Equality (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2024. Currently at the General Scheme stage, the Bill is undergoing refinement before progressing through Ireland’s legislative process in the Oireachtas. With the goal of fostering equality, inclusivity, and transparency, the proposed amendments main areas are:

• Pay transparency.
• Intersectional discrimination (referred to as dual discrimination in Great Britain the concept for which was introduced in the Equality Act 2010 but has not yet been brought into force).
• Recruitment practices.

This law is introduced to ensure that Irish equality laws (including the Employment Equality Act 1998 and Equal Status Act 2000) are in keeping with European Union Directives like the Pay Transparency Directive. The Bill is heralded as combatting discrimination and promoting fairness in the workplace.

Key Provisions and Proposed Changes

1. Pay Transparency

To comply with the EU’s Pay Transparency Directive, which must be implemented by June 2026, the Bill proposes significant changes to ensure equitable pay practices.

Employers will be:

• Required to disclose salary levels or ranges in job advertisements. While specifics regarding the depth of this disclosure are yet to be determined, the provision aims to eliminate loopholes such as overly broad salary ranges.
• Prohibited from requesting pay history or current salary details from job applicants. This measure is designed to prevent perpetuating pay gaps or discrimination based on previous salaries. For example, it safeguards individuals who may have experienced historical pay discrimination from carrying that bias into new employment.

These measures aim to address longstanding issues, including gender-based pay disparities, and foster greater transparency in remuneration practices.

2. Recruitment Criteria

The Bill requires employers to ensure:

• Job requirements are proportionate and objectively justified, so as to avoid indirect discrimination against protected groups.
• Recruitment processes are free from bias, providing equal opportunities to all candidates. Employers may be encouraged to implement initiatives targeting underrepresented groups, such as women, individuals with disabilities, or ethnic minorities.

To support compliance, employers may need to collect and report diversity data on applicants and hires, ensuring accountability in promoting workplace equality.

3. Intersectional Discrimination

When implemented the Bill will make a significant development in equality legislation by explicitly recognising intersectional discrimination where employees may face discrimination due to overlapping identities. For example, being from a different race and female. This is permitted by amendments to Section 3 of the Equal Status Act clarifying that discrimination can occur on multiple grounds simultaneously and expands employers’ obligations to ensure fair and equitable treatment in the workplace.

While the Bill strengthens protections for employees, it will also introduce new challenges for businesses. Intersectional discrimination can be more complex to assess, as mistreatment may stem from a combination of factors rather than a single characteristic. This increases the need for enhanced HR policies and specialised training to educate and ensure that potential issues are dealt with before they escalate. Additionally, employers may need to adapt workplace policies and procedures to accommodate multi-ground claims.

4. Positive Action Measures

The Bill enables employers to take proactive steps toward increasing participation of underrepresented groups. Expanding beyond gender-based initiatives, employers can develop targeted recruitment programs designed to promote equality across various protected grounds.

Additionally, amendments to the Employment Equality Acts require objective justification for specific qualifications tied to roles, addressing potential indirect discrimination linked to educational, technical, or professional prerequisites.

Members maybe aware the in the US, President Trump signed a number of Executive Orders considered to be a roll back on EDI initiatives and is particularly targeting initiatives aimed at redressing under representation. It will remain to be seen if this mandate in US continues in force and how it will co-exist with any companies operating in US and Ireland.

5. Extended Timeframes for Lodging Complaints

The Bill proposes extending complaint deadlines with the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) across several key acts:

• Employment Equality Act 1998: Current time limits of six months for filing discrimination claims are extended to 12 months, with an additional six-month extension for reasonable cause.
• Equal Status Act 2000-2018: Notification deadlines for discrimination claims are increased from two months to four, with extensions possible for reasonable cause. Filing deadlines with the WRC are similarly extended from six to 12 months.
• Maternity Protection Act 1994: Adjustments ensure claims related to pregnancy or breastfeeding discrimination can be filed within reasonable timeframes, even up to two years after pregnancy-related issues arise.

Again the extended deadlines are considered as providing greater access to justice for complainants but may pose challenges for employers by lengthening the period during which claims can arise.

Implications for Employers

Employers will need to adopt comprehensive measures to meet the new requirements under the Equality Bill. Key actions include:

• Developing clear anti-discrimination policies and training programs for managers to handle harassment or bias complaints effectively.
• Improving recruitment processes to promote fairness and transparency while addressing underrepresentation of certain groups.
• Ensuring compliance with pay transparency obligations, particularly in job advertisements and hiring practices.
• Training Staff

Additionally, the recognition of intersectional discrimination and extended timeframes for lodging complaints reinforces the need for employers to proactively assess and address workplace practices that may unintentionally perpetuate inequality.

Final Thoughts

The Equality (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2024 reflects Ireland’s continuing commitment to advancing equality in the workplace. As the Bill progresses through the legislative process, we will keep you informed.

1. Gender Pay Gap Reporting Ireland- Online Portal Launch

Minister for Children, Disability and Equality, Norma Foley, has announced that the new gender pay gap reporting portal will be launched in Autumn 2025.

Come the 1^st June 2025, employers with 50 or more employees will be required to publish a gender pay gap report on the online portal.

This portal will bring reports from all private and public sector employers together for the first time. This portal will also be fully searchable by the public.

The current position is that in-scope employers are only required to publish their gender pay gap report on their own website. It is estimated that approximately 6,000 organisations will now be required to report their gender pay gap on the online portal.

Employers must choose a date in June each year as their “snapshot date” for collecting the relevant data. They will then have five months from this date to provide their Gender Pay Gap Report. The reporting date has also been brought forward by one month, moving the deadline for reporting from December to November each year.

CASE LAW UPDATE

1. An Employee v A Café (ADJ-00047296)

Sexual Harassment in Workplace

In a significant ruling (ADJ-00047296), the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) awarded €12,000 in compensation to a former café worker following a complaint of sexual harassment arising from a work-related event. This decision sheds light on employer liability and the need for robust anti-harassment policies.

Background of the Case

 The complainant, who was employed by the café for 12 weeks in 2023, alleged she was sexually harassed by her manager, Mr. X, during a night out attended exclusively by café staff. The incident occurred when Mr. X walked the complainant home, allegedly pushing her against a wall and kissing her. The complainant stated she rejected his advance and pushed him away.

Following the incident, the complainant claimed Mr. X became hostile and critical of her work. She described experiencing stress due to the situation and eventually resigned from her position in June 2023. She further alleged that her concerns were not adequately addressed by management despite her attempts to escalate the issue.

Mr. X, however, argued the kiss was accidental and that he apologised immediately. He maintained that any criticism of the complainant’s work was due to her performance, which did not meet the café’s standards.

WRC’s Findings

 After examining the evidence, the Adjudicator concluded that the incident of sexual harassment occurred as described by the complainant. He noted that her actions—such as discussing the matter with colleagues and contacting senior management—supported her account.

The Adjudicator determined that Mr. X’s behaviour fell within the definition of sexual harassment under the Employment Equality Acts 1998-2015. Crucially, it was ruled that the night out, although not officially organised by the café, fell within the scope of employment due to its exclusive attendance by staff and its connection to the workplace.

The café’s legal defence argued that employers should not be discouraged from allowing social events for fear of liability. However, the WRC held that the café had failed to take reasonably practicable steps to prevent workplace harassment. This failure included a lack of training for managers, ineffective communication of anti-harassment policies, and inadequate support for the complainant.

 Outcome

 The WRC awarded the complainant €12,000, noting this was close to the maximum compensation available for such claims. However, it dismissed her allegations of workplace retaliation and confirmed her resignation was not considered constructive dismissal.

 Lessons for Employers

This case highlights the importance of robust workplace policies on harassment and proactive measures to prevent such incidents. Employers should ensure:

• Clear communication and accessibility of anti-harassment policies.
• Proper training for all staff, especially managers, on handling harassment complaints.
• Effective mechanisms for employees to report harassment safely.

 Anonymisation in WRC Decisions

 Notably, the WRC anonymised this decision, aligning with a recent Supreme Court judgment in another case. The Adjudicator acknowledged the potential for reputational harm arising from published rulings and deemed anonymity appropriate to protect the parties involved.

This case serves as a reminder that while social interactions among staff can foster camaraderie, employers must remain vigilant in ensuring a safe and respectful environment for all employees—inside and outside the workplace.

2. Tom Ronan V Commissioner for An Garda Siochana, Ireland and the Attorney General (High Court)

Employment disputes in Ireland often involve complex legal procedures, with injunctions emerging as a crucial mechanism for addressing issues like wrongful termination, discrimination, or breaches of employment law.

The ongoing case of Tom Ronan exemplifies the intricacies of this process, particularly in the context of age discrimination and mandatory retirement.

Background

Mr. Ronan, a civilian Garda driver, faced mandatory retirement at the age of 70 despite his protest that the decision constituted age discrimination. His complaint was upheld by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), who ruled that forcing Mr. Ronan to retire was discriminatory.

The WRC decision provided for re-engagement within four weeks of the ruling and extension of his employment for an additional three years.

Interestingly, while WRC acknowledged the objective justification for the mandatory retirement age, he found it unreasonable in Mr. Ronan’s case due to the financial hardship the retirement would impose.

On 14 November 2024, the first defendant appealed the WRC determination to the Labour Court and did not re-engage Mr. Ronan as directed by the WRC. Instead, the defendant sought Mr. Ronan’s consent for a stay on the WRC determination and formally requested a stay from the Labour Court on 20 November 2024.

The Labour Court, via a letter dated 27 November 2024, stated it had no jurisdiction to grant a stay. It clarified that any appeal to the Labour Court results in a de novo (fresh) hearing, and the WRC decision carries no binding weight during this process.

Mr. Ronan requested re-engagement in line with the WRC determination. However  the defendant declined, citing section 43(3) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 which provide that WRC determinations are unenforceable while under appeal.

Mr. Ronan -initiated proceedings on 29 January 2025 and secured an interim injunction on 30 January 2025 to enforce the WRC determination and require re-engagement, allowing him to resume his duties temporarily.

 On 4 February 2025, the defendants then filed an application to discharge the interim injunction. The court consolidated both applications, which were subsequently heard on 6 February 2025.

However, when Mr. Ronan applied for an interlocutory injunction to maintain the interim arrangement until the Labour Court’s hearing, his request was denied on 14th February 2025.

That High Court held that:

• Age discrimination claims should be pursued through statutory mechanisms, namely the WRC and Labour Court.
• Granting an injunction would interfere with the Labour Court’s decision-making role.
• Section 43(3) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 clarifies that WRC orders cannot be enforced by the District Court while under appeal.
• Exceptional circumstances are required to justify granting relief through an injunction when statutory remedies are available, and no such circumstances existed in this case.

The High Court’s decision reflects the limits of judicial intervention in statutory frameworks, emphasising the integrity of processes outlined in employment legislation.

Injunctions play a vital role in Irish employment disputes, offering temporary relief while awaiting the resolution of legal claims. They typically fall into two categories:

Interim Injunctions: Short-term measures granted without full arguments from all parties. These aim to preserve the status quo until the dispute is resolved.

Interlocutory Injunctions: Longer-term relief granted after hearing arguments from all parties. These remain in effect until the case’s conclusion.

For injunctions to succeed in employment disputes, claimants must typically satisfy three criteria:

• There is a serious issue to be tried.
• Damages would not suffice as compensation.
• The balance of convenience favours granting the injunction.

This case underscores the limits of using injunctions to enforce WRC orders under appeal. It highlights the principle that statutory remedies must be exhausted before judicial intervention. Moreover, Justice Mulcahy’s ruling illustrates that courts are reluctant to grant injunctions that could pre-emptively determine the outcome of statutory procedures.

Implications for Employers

Mandatory retirement ages and age discrimination remain highly complex areas of employment law.

Employers should:

• Seek legal advice before enforcing mandatory retirement, particularly when employees request to extend their employment.
• Ensure compliance with anti-discrimination legislation to mitigate the risk of disputes.
• Understand the potential implications of WRC rulings and appeals, including the limits on enforcement of decisions under the Workplace Relations Act 2015.

Looking Ahead

Mr. Ronan’s efforts to appeal the High Court’s refusal of an interlocutory injunction will be closely watched, as the Supreme Court or Court of Appeal may weigh in on the broader implications for employment law. Additionally, the Labour Court’s ruling on the WRC decision will provide further clarity on mandatory retirement and age discrimination.

Employers often face challenges in balancing the rights of employees with conflicting views, such as gender-critical beliefs and those regarding sexual orientation or same-sex marriage. These cases are frequently fact-specific, with actions that may be appropriate in one instance not being suitable in another. However, the recent Court of Appeal judgment in the case of Kristie Higgs v Farmor’s School provides a helpful framework for employers navigating this complex issue.

Case Overview

Kristie Higgs, a teacher at Farmor’s School, was dismissed over two posts on her personal Facebook account, made under her maiden name. The posts, which criticized same-sex relationships, were deemed transphobic and homophobic by a parent who complained to the headteacher.

Legal Proceedings

In the tribunal, it was argued that Higgs was entitled to hold her views but was dismissed due to the objectionable manner in which she expressed them. Initially, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) had remitted the case back to the Employment Tribunal (ET) due to flawed reasoning. However, the Court of Appeal overturned this decision, finding Higgs’s dismissal to be discriminatory and providing a clear framework for employers.

Key Points from the Judgment

1. Unlawful Direct Discrimination: Dismissal solely because an employee has expressed religious or other protected beliefs, to which the employer objects or fears will offend third parties, constitutes unlawful direct discrimination.
2. Proportionate Response: If the dismissal is motivated not just by the expression of the belief but by something objectionable in the way it was expressed, the employer must show that the dismissal was a proportionate response. This determination must be objective and justified.

Court’s Conclusion

The Court concluded that the factors relied upon by Farmor’s School could not justify Higgs’s dismissal:

• There was no reason to believe that Higgs, who had worked at the school for six years without complaint, would express such views at work or display discriminatory attitudes towards pupils.
• Although the posts’ language was rhetorical and provocative, it did not express hatred or disgust for gay or trans people. Higgs stated she endorsed the content of the messages, not their language.
• The risk to the school’s reputation was minimal, given the limited access to Higgs’s Facebook account.

Paragraph 175, offers valuable insights for those who want a quick summary of the case.

Conclusion

This case emphasizes that the appropriateness of behaviour must be determined objectively and that any disciplinary action must be proportionate. Employers must prove that the dismissal is objectively justified, not merely that they believed it to be justified.

It is important for businesses to pause and take a measured response when dealing with conflicting beliefs.