AI use ‘adding to capacity pressure on WRC’
A webinar on employment law has heard that capacity issues facing the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) are unlikely to abate this year.
The event (24 June) was organised by Law Society Professional Training in collaboration with the Law Society’s Employment and Equality Law Committee.
The webinar included presentations on the latest employment-law trends and a discussion of recent case-law developments.
Discussing the WRC’s annual report for 2025, Éinde O’Donnell (partner, Alastair Purdy LLP) and Susan Battye (partner, Bird & Bird Ireland LLP,) noted that, while complaint applications had risen by 44% to just over 10,500, there was a significant fall in the number of decisions issued.
O’Donnell said that parties were waiting, on average, six months to get a first hearing date, adding that this needed to be factored into the advice given to clients.
Timely submissions
Battye (small picture) told the event that, to free up available hearing dates and help with the backlog, the WRC had encouraged practitioners to make timely submissions and notify it earlier about requesting postponements and unavailability of witnesses.
When solicitors, their counsel, or key witnesses are not going to be available on specific dates, they should let the WRC know before the case is listed for hearing.
She added that the WRC would be scheduling hearings during August this year, but postponements would not be backfilled during that month.
WRC responds ‘decisively’
While the WRC cited increases in the volume and complexity of cases as reasons for the capacity issues, O’Donnell told the event that the use of AI was also a contributing factor.
The employment lawyer also said that the WRC had responded “decisively and well” to issues raised by AI – including inaccurate or incorrect citations of case law – with recent guidance on the use of the technology.
“The core message is quite simple: it's that the WRC will treat everything you submit as yours, regardless of whether AI is used or not,” O’Donnell stated.
He added that, while it was not mandatory to disclose the use of AI in submissions or documents, it was “probably a sensible course”, as it demonstrated transparency.
E-complaint form difficulties
Battye told the webinar that the Employment and Equality Law Committee had been engaging with the WRC on difficulties being experienced by solicitors with its e-complaint form.
She said that the electronic form now ‘times out’ due to inactivity after two hours, rather than 30 minutes.
The WRC has said that the e-complaint form has been designed primarily for direct use by individual applications.
Guidance on the use of the system by representatives is available and being updated in the WRC user guide (which is available on the WRC website).
Battye added that the WRC was also open to solicitors contacting it about retrieving data lost in the e-complaint form due to timing-out issues.
For issues being experienced with the electronic complaint form, users can contact the Information and Customer Service team at the WRC .
Although some delays in the issuance of decisions may be due to parties not submitting additional information required by the adjudication officer after the hearing, where practitioners are waiting for decisions beyond the median timeframe of 40 working days, they have been advised to contact pru@workplacerelations.ie.
Sick-leave litigation
In a review of recent case law, Sarah Lawn (senior associate, Lewis Silkin Ireland LLP) told the webinar that much litigation surrounding the Sick Leave Act 2022 centred on whether the employer’s sick-pay scheme was, as a whole, more favourable than the statutory entitlement under the legislation.
She noted that in Lee Peate v Musgrave Marketplace, the WRC had found that the complainant was entitled to statutory sick pay, as the company scheme was not more favourable overall due to the length of service required (12 months, compared with 13 weeks under the 2022 act).
In SK Biotek Ireland Ltd v Shannon Reina, however, the Labour Court overturned a previous WRC decision in favour of the employee, in a case where both sides agreed that the company scheme was more favourable than statutory sick leave entitlements.
The employee had been refused company sick pay due to a previous warning over a failure to comply with the firm’s absence-management policy.
Lawn said that the Labour Court had clarified that, under the 2022 act, companies were allowed to attach conditions to sick-pay policies.
Bonus excluded
Lawn also highlighted some recent high-profile unfair-dismissal cases involving senior executives – including a Labour Court ruling that cut the amount of an award to former X (previously Twitter) senior manager Gary Rooney.
She said that, while the Labour Court had upheld the WRC’s unfair-dismissal finding, it had excluded a bonus, which was found to be discretionary, and payments under a share scheme from the award.
Chair Ronnie Neville (Mason Hayes & Curran) said that the cases showed the importance of drafting for bonus schemes, which applied equally to people on €30,000 or €300,000 contracts.
Lawn pointed to a Labour Court ruling in Caroline O'Connell v Lionbridge International, which also excluded a discretionary bonus from the award, saying that “expectation of a bonus is not equal to entitlement”.
Re-engagement order ‘rare’
In Graham Reidy v Musgrave Limited, Lawn noted that the WRC had found that the complainant was unfairly dismissed for gross misconduct, and ordered re-engagement with the employer, finding that compensation would not be a just remedy.
She described such a ruling as “rare” but added that it was always important to flag the risk of such an order when advising clients in unfair-dismissal claims.
The Lewis Silkin lawyer also highlighted some recent important discrimination cases, such as a WRC award of €40,000 against the National Council for Special Education in favour of a job candidate, after finding that the maximum award of €13,000 for job applicants under equality legislation was not an effective remedy.
The decision is under appeal to the Labour Court.