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.

ACAS has published new guidance on the rights to neonatal care leave and pay, which came into effect on Sunday, 6 April 2024.

The new rights to neonatal care leave and pay are to support for parents with a baby in neonatal care,

The Guide is divided into 6 parts covering

1. What the Law Says: An overview of the legal framework for neonatal care leave.
2. Checking Eligibility for Leave: Criteria for determining who qualifies for this leave.
3. Telling an Employer: How and when employees should notify their employer about their need for leave.
4. Managing Leave: Best practices for employers to support their staff during neonatal care leave.
5. Pay: Details of entitlement to neonatal care pay.
6. Rights During and After Leave: Protections for employees while on leave and when they return to work.

Some Key Points:

Duration of Leave: Neonatal care leave can range from a minimum of 1 week to a maximum of 12 weeks, depending on how long the baby requires neonatal care.

Eligibility: To qualify, the baby must have been in neonatal care for at least 7 consecutive days.

Combining with Other Leave: Neonatal care leave can be added to the end of any pre-booked statutory parental leave, giving parents additional flexibility.

Notice Requirements depend on whether the leave is classified as Tier 1 or Tier 2 Leave:

• Tier 1 Leave: Covers the period when the child is still in neonatal care and includes 1 week after neonatal care ends.
• Tier 2 Leave: Applies to the period beyond Tier 1 and before the end of 68 weeks from the child’s birth.

Retrospective Entitlement: Eligibility is only formalized once the child has been hospitalized for 7 days of neonatal care.

What Should Employers Do?

These provisions can be intricate and GB employers should ensure they understand the provisions. We have also have a Neonatal Care and Leave Policy and can provide this to any Member on request by emailing info@eefni.org

The ACAS Guidance can be accessed here

Great Britain Employment Rights: Increase in Limits (14 March 2025)

In Great Britain, The Employment Rights (Increase of Limits) Order 2025 (No. 348) was laid before Parliament on 14 March 2025 and comes into effect on 6 April 2025. This sets out the level of annual increases to awards and amounts

Increases from 6 April 2025:

The Order confirms that from 6 April 2025:

• Week’s Pay: Rises from £700 to £
• Compensatory Award* Increases from £115,115 to £118,223*. 

(In GB, the compensatory award  is capped at the lower of either this upper limit or one year’s salary. In contrast, Northern Ireland only applies the statutory cap of  the upper limit and has no corresponding  one-year salary cap.)

• Guarantee Pay: A modest increase from £38 to £39 per day.

These new rates apply to events, such as dismissals, dismissals, occurring on or after 6 April 2025.

Updates for Northern Ireland

Northern Ireland has yet to publish its updated rates. Companies maybe aware that the rates in Northern Ireland  historically  differ to those in GB due to a different rounding method. For example, in comparison in 2024, Northern Ireland’s limits include:

• Compensatory Award: £115,341 (2024 rate).
• Week’s Pay Limit: £729 (2024 rate).

It is expected that any new rates for NI will also take effect from 6 April 2025. We will notify Members when the new rates are published.

From 31 December 2024, the Home Office Guidance Guidance Workers and Temporary Workers: sponsor a skilled worker prohibits the recoupment of certain fees from sponsored workers. These changes are aligned with a commitment made in the Written Ministerial Statement on 28 November 2024, ensuring that specific costs are not passed on to sponsored workers.

Key Changes

1. Skilled Worker Sponsor Licence Fees:

Sponsors are no longer permitted to pass on the cost of the sponsor licence fee or associated administrative costs, including premium services, to sponsored workers.

2. Certificate of Sponsorship (CoS) Fees:

For CoS assigned on or after December 31, 2024, sponsors cannot pass on these fees to sponsored workers.

3. Amendment for Study Route Switch:

A minor amendment has been made reflecting a change of name for the CoS category where the worker is applying to switch from a study route.

4. Defined CoS Assignment:

It is now clarified that a Defined CoS must be assigned to a worker within 90 days from the date it was allocated to the sponsor, instead of the previously stated 3 months.

Consequences for Sponsors:

If a sponsor is found to have recouped or attempted to recoup these costs from sponsored workers, their sponsor licence will usually be revoked.

Commentary:

This now answers the question if these costs can be passed on to candidates. Indeed we understand that on occasion candidates offer to pay these costs in exchange for employment. Moving forward, this practice is no longer permissible. Businesses with any contractual recoupment clauses for these fees must ensure that these clauses are removed so as to comply with the new Guidance.

The Industrial Tribunals and Fair Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2024 came into effect on 12 December 2024, making amendments to The Industrial Tribunals and Fair Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2020.

The key amendments include:

1. Employment Judge Sitting Alone

An Employment Judge may now sit alone in certain circumstances. Whilst the specific conditions for this are not detailed in the Regulations, they may be outlined in a subsequent Practice Direction. Currently Employment Judges in Northern Ireland can sit alone in unlawful deduction from wages claims.

Since 2012, Employment Judges in Great Britain have been allowed to sit alone in unfair dismissal cases. We anticipate that we may follow this approach. In July 2024, the Senior President of the Tribunals in GB issued a Practice Direction which now permits Employment Judges to sit alone in all cases in GB.

2. Multiple Claimants on a Single Claim Form

In certain circumstances the amendments allow two or more Claimants to make their claim on a single Claim Form. This change is intended to streamline the process for cases involving multiple parties.

3. Default Judgments and Recording of Judgments

The Regulations provide for the issuance of default judgments and exempt the recording of judgments on the register when a claim is withdrawn.

4. Reasonable Notice of Hearings

The amendments require reasonable notice of Hearings, which can be less than 14 days if all parties consent. This flexibility is designed to expedite the scheduling of Hearings.

Commentary

As the Employment Tribunal in NI continues to modernise it will be interesting to see whether we adopt the GB practice of allowing Employment Judges to sit alone in all cases.

In our experience lay members play a critical role in Employment Tribunal Hearings by bringing realism and industrial knowledge to the decision-making process. In panels of three, lay members have equal voting power and can out-vote the Employment Judge, although this is rare. Indeed, there was an extensive recruitment campaign for lay members which was completed earlier in 2024 so it will be interesting to see how the extent of their role develops.

EHRC GUIDANCE: NEW SEXUAL HARASSMENT LAW AND WORKPLACE CHRISTMAS PARTIES: WHAT EMPLOYERS NEED TO KNOW

On 11 December 2024, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) published guidance aimed at assisting organisations in complying with the new positive duty on employers to prevent sexual harassment at Christmas parties. Although the guidance states it is specific to Christmas parties, it can be applied to any work-related event.

Background

In Great Britain, a positive duty to prevent sexual harassment came into force on 26 October 2024. To accompany this new duty, the EHRC updated its technical guidance on Sexual harassment and harassment at work: technical guidance and released an Employer 8-step guide: Preventing sexual harassment at work

This New sexual harassment law and workplace Christmas parties: What employers need to know is intended to supplement those Guides.

EHRC’s Top 3 Steps for Preventing Sexual Harassment During Work Parties

The EHRC has outlined three essential steps that organisations should take to prevent sexual harassment and ensure a safe environment for all employees.

1. Think Ahead to Prevent Problems and Risks

• Alcohol: Recognize that alcohol can lower inhibitions and lead to inappropriate behaviour. Consider setting limits on alcohol consumption at events.
• Overnight Stays and Travel: Ensure that accommodation arrangements are safe and appropriate. Communicate that the same standards of behaviour apply at all times, not just during the event itself.
• Power Imbalances: Be mindful of the dynamics between senior staff and junior colleagues, and consider the gender composition of the workforce. Address potential issues proactively.

2. Set Expectations Early and Remind of Company Policies

• Define Sexual Harassment: Ensure employees understand what constitutes sexual harassment in the workplace.
• Reporting Procedures: Remind staff about the procedures for reporting and witnessing sexual harassment.
• Behaviour Standards: Reinforce the standard of behaviour expected at both company-arranged events and informal social gatherings.

3. Consider the Risk of Third-Party Harassment

• Risk Assessment: Complete a risk assessment during the planning stages of the event to identify potential hazards.
• Safer Locations and Activities: Use the risk assessment to choose safer locations and activities that minimize the risk of harassment.
• Communication: Clearly communicate your organization’s expected standards of behaviour to staff and any relevant third parties involved in the event.

Conclusion

Whilst the new duty to prevent sexual harassment does not extend to Northern Ireland the EHRC’s guidance is very helpful as it provides a proactive approach to preventing sexual harassment at work-related gatherings. By thinking ahead, setting clear expectations, and considering the risk of third-party harassment, organisations can create a safer and more inclusive environment for their employees.

Implementing these steps would not only help to comply with the new legal duty In Great Britain it would also foster a respectful and supportive workplace culture.

Taking these steps would also assist any Organisation in establishing that they have taken all reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment and defend any sexual harassment claim in Northern Ireland.

EQUALITY AT WORK: GB CALL FOR EVIDENCE ON STATUTORY PATERNITY & SHARED PARENTAL LEAVE

2024 was a significant year for employment law, with a strong focus on reform of rights in the workplace. One of the areas currently under review in Great Britain is statutory paternity and shared parental leave.

Background and Context

On 6 December 2024, the GB Women & Equalities Commission launched a call for evidence to inform their work ahead of the GB Government’s proposed review of the parental leave system.

This move comes in response to the recognition that the current system does not adequately support working parents. The GB draft Employment Rights Bill published in October 2024 includes measures to enhance family-friendly rights at work, but states that a comprehensive review is necessary to create a more effective and equitable system.

Northern Ireland (NI) is currently working on implementing an effective Early Learning and Childcare Strategy, which is considered a critical driver of gender equality. Recent reforms to parental leave proposed in the NI Good Jobs Consultation  only tweak at the existing regime, addressing some of its current inefficiencies. These changes would more or less align NI to the current position in GB.

In Great Britain the review is much more far reaching.

The Call for Evidence

The Call for Evidence is the first stage of this review. The Committee has highlighted that the unequal division of childcare responsibilities is a key driver of wider gender inequality and the gender pay gap. The goal is to identify the most effective ways to encourage equal sharing of childcare and domestic responsibilities between mothers and their partners.

Employers are encouraged to share their experiences and views, especially on how inequalities in the uptake of shared parental leave by ethnicity, income, qualification level, and occupational status can be addressed.

Questions

The Committee is seeking written submissions on the following points:

1. What have been the longer-term equality impacts of the scheme, for example on equal sharing of responsibilities for children as they grow up, and wider domestic responsibilities?
2. What have been the labour market impacts of the scheme, particularly for women?
3. Why has take up of statutory shared parental leave been low and what could be done to increase take up?
4. How can inequalities in take up of shared parental leave, including by ethnicity, income, qualification level and occupational status, be addressed?
5. Are there potentially more effective alternatives to the current “maternal transfer” model of shared parental leave?
6. Which countries have most effectively incentivised equal parenting and wider gender equality through their approaches to parental leave? What would be the costs and benefits of replicating?

Timeline for Submissions

Employers and other stakeholders are invited to submit their written evidence by Friday, 31 January 2025. These insights and experiences will then help role shape what is hoped to be a more equitable parental leave system.

On 26 November 2024, the Northern Ireland Statistics & Research Agency (NISRA) published the Women in Northern Ireland 2023 Report . This report delves into the characteristics of women in the Northern Ireland labour market and highlights some critical insights for employers.

Key Findings

A consistent feature of the report is the higher economic inactivity rates for females. Whilst women make up half of the working-age population (those persons aged between 16-64 years old), significant disparities exist when comparing economic participation between genders.

Comparisons Between Females and Males

1. Economic Inactivity:

Three in ten working-age women are not working compared to one in five working-age men.

2. Reasons for Economic Inactivity:

The main reason for economic inactivity among women is long-term sickness. Thereafter for women, looking after the family is the second most common reason for economic inactivity. In contrast, ‘looking after the family’ is the least common reason given by men.

3. Employment Patterns:

Women are less likely to be self-employed and more likely to work part-time. Approximately 60% of employed women with dependent children work full-time, compared to 96% of employed men with dependent children.

The age of the youngest child in the household increases the likelihood of women working part-time. Women with dependent children are more likely to work full-time when the youngest dependent child is at secondary school.

Women with dependent children (of any age) are more likely to work part-time than those without children, while the opposite is true for men.

4. Employment Rates and Earnings:

Over the past ten years, the female employment rate has been lower than that of males. Women earned 7.8% less than men in Northern Ireland, meaning for every £1 earned by men, women earned 92p.

Commentary

These findings are not surprising, but they emphasize the ongoing challenges women face in the workforce. Particularly striking is the disparity in reasons for economic inactivity and the continued prevalence of part-time work among women, especially those with dependent children.

To see more women in leadership positions, employers need to address these challenges head-on. With the implementation of Gender Pay Gap reporting now is a good time for each Organisation to consider the data in their workforces and identify steps they can take to support female employees and address these disparities.

Audio recording of meetings – are you complying with Data Protection obligations?

Whilst most employers continue to make handwritten notes of meetings including investigations, disciplinary, and grievance meetings, with advances in technology and the increasing use of AI some employers are now considering alternative methods of notetaking. Some AI tools automatically transcribe the content of a meeting, alternatively parties may use more traditional audio recording and manually transcribe the content following the meeting.

Technology isn’t always without its glitches and from a practical perspective we would encourage any organisation considering moving to this type of recording to test any system rigorously before moving entirely away from handwritten notes.

The purpose of this article however is to consider the data protection implications of such recordings.

 Be aware of your data protection obligations

Recordings will contain the personal data of the participants and also contain the personal data of anyone who is discussed during the meeting. It is highly likely that in any such meeting Special Category data (which attracts a higher level of protection) will be recorded, for example, information about health, trade union membership, religious beliefs, race, sexual orientation etc.

Compared to making a handwritten note, any form of audio recording is more intrusive as it not only captures what each individual said but also their voice. If a video recording is made, for example of a meeting conducted via Teams, this is more intrusive again.

 Carry out a Data Privacy Impact Assessment

In light of this we strongly recommended that a Data Privacy Impact Assessment (DPIA) is carried out before an organisation take steps carries out any form of audio recording.

A DPIA is a process designed to help you systematically analyse, identify and minimise the data protection risks of a project or plan. It is a key part of your accountability obligations under the UK GDPR, and when done properly helps you assess and demonstrate how you comply with all of your data protection obligations. Conducting a DPIA is a legal requirement for any type of processing that is likely to result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of individuals. The ICO website contains a template that you can use or adapt: https://ico.org.uk/media2/migrated/2553993/dpia-template.docx

 Identify your lawful basis for processing 

As part of the DPIA the organisation will need to identify its lawful basis for processing, and then document the lawful basis, before any processing (including recording) can begin. As members will be aware, due to the imbalance of power in the employer/ employee relationship consent cannot be used as a lawful basis for processing. Therefore you will need to consider whether you can bring it under “necessary for the performance of the contract” or the more flexible “legitimate interests” however this requires a Legitimate Interests Assessment and can also be open to challenge.

 Update your privacy information

Where audio recording is being used, it will also be necessary to issue all parties to a recorded meeting with an updated privacy notice. This updated privacy notice should detail information including:

• the lawful basis for processing;
• how the recording will be used;
• who it will be shared with;
• where it will be stored; and
• for how long etc

It must be provided to all parties in advance of the meeting. This could be achieved through a statement in the Disciplinary Policy and Procedure / Grievance Procedure itself provided the parties are made aware and are able to access to it. Alternatively, you may need to consider issuing a Just in Time Privacy Notice on each occasion.

You also need to define how long your organisation will keep the recording. We are aware that some employers transcribe the recording, share a copy of the typewritten notes with the employee, then erase the recording once the typewritten notes are agreed. You should however consider how you will deal with any disputes about the transcript as any party to the meeting could request a copy of the recording.

Deletion of the recording also may not be straightforward as it must be retained if it is relevant to any potential legal proceedings.

 Consider how you will deal with requests for the recording

Any individual who attends a recorded meeting may issue a Data Subject Access Request (DSAR) and as part of this request a copy of the audio recording. Such a request could be issued by the employee who is the “subject” of the meeting, it may be their companion/Trade Union representative, or anyone else in attendance.

There is an exemption in the Data Protection Act 2018 that states you do not have to comply with a DSAR if doing so would mean disclosing the personal data of a third party except where:

• the other party has consented to the disclosure; or
• it is reasonable to reply to the request without that individual’s consent

As all of the attendees at the meeting heard what was discussed, it is highly unlikely you could refuse to share the recording on the basis consent is required (or has been denied) by others who attended the meeting. If people who were not present at the meeting are discussed, this opens up a different line of consideration.

If you are sharing an audio recording then it should be subject to strict controls, some of which would likely include: that it is not to be published (for example, online); and an agreement about who it can be shared with/played to however this may be difficult to enforce in practice.

Overall, whilst the move to digital forms of recording brings a number of benefits, there are certainly a number of legal implications to consider.

In June 2024, we contacted the NI Department of Communities (DfC), which is responsible for introducing the NI Gender Pay Gap Regulations, asking about the expected timeline for the implementation of Gender Pay Gap Regulations. Their response was a vague “in due course.”

Then on 25 November 2024, DfC quietly launched the Consultation on The Gender Pay Gap Information Regulations  to plan how these Regulations will be implemented in NI.

Background

Most people are aware that the Gender Pay Gap regulations require the reporting of differences in pay between male and female employees. These regulations have been in place in Great Britain for seven years and initially it had been envisaged that similar measures would be introduced in NI in and around the same time. Due to a delay with the transfer of functions between NI Departments (in part caused by delays with covid and Stormont being dissolved) the regulations were not implemented and were placed on hold.

The purposes of these regulations in the main are to:

1. Identify gender pay gaps.
2. Analyse the drivers behind these gaps.
3. Explore how employers’ policies and practices may have contributed to these gaps.
4. Encourage employers to take remedial action.

The consultation does note that the Gender Pay Gap in NI is lower than in the rest of the UK. This is largely due to a higher proportion of public sector jobs, where the pay difference is 6.2%. However, in the private and voluntary sectors in NI, the difference is more significant, with females earning 14.8% less than males.

Proposals

The NI Regulations are intended to go further than the original GB Regulations by requiring employers to publish information on workers related to ethnicity and disability. Although there is no legal obligation to record ethnicity or disability, the NI Regulations propose that, when this information is available or the employer is notified, it should be recorded and reported.

The Consultation seeks response on a proposed snap shot date of 5 April each year. The snap shot date is the specific date that businesses base their gender pay gap calculations on payroll data.

The regulations are proposed to apply to employers with 250 or more employees, the same as currently in place in GB. As of June 2024, it is estimated that this would apply to 345 employers in Northern Ireland.

Consultation Details

The consultation is short with only 16 questions seeking views on how the regulations will be implemented, not on whether they will be implemented which is a given. For example, one of the questions asks if the Office of National Statistics (ONS) definition of calculating “pay” should be used.

Timeline

The estimated timeline for implementing these regulations is approximately 18 months for the policy proposals, with laws likely to be passed in early 2027. Therefore, actual reporting would typically begin a year later, in 2028 and data gathered over the previous year.

Consultation Period

The consultation will run from 25 November 2024 until 14 February 2025.

This year, 2024 has been a significant year for employment law, and these regulations will be discussed at the Employers Federation End of Year Gathering on 19 December 2024. If you wish to book on that event please email at john@eefni.org

We very much encourage Members to feed in their views and opinions which will help shape our responses particularly from those with experience of completing gender pay gap reports in other jurisdictions. Any responses are welcome and should be sent to michelle@eefni.org