What you need to know
- The Employment (Contractual Retirement Ages) Act 2025: The Act was commenced on 29 June 2026.
- Code of Practice for Longer Working: The Code of Practice was revised to account for the changes brought in by the Employment (Contractual Retirement Ages) Act 2025. The Code of Practice has been effective since 29 June 2026.
- The Protection of Employees (Employers’ Insolvency) (Amendment) Act 2026: Certain key sections of the Act were commenced on 6 June 2026.
- Pay transparency: The Irish Government missed the transposition deadline for the Pay Transparency Directive.
- Artificial intelligence (AI) guidance: The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), Labour Court and Court of Appeal have updated their guidance on the use of AI tools in preparing written submissions.
- RSU guidance: Precedent was set regarding the treatment of Restricted Share Units (RSUs) in the calculation of remuneration and/or loss under Unfair Dismissals Act 1977.
The Employment (Contractual Retirement Ages) Act 2025
Since 29 June 2026, the law on retirement in Ireland has changed significantly. The Employment (Contractual Retirement Ages) Act 2025 (2025 Act) commenced on that date. It gives employees the right to inform their employers if they do not consent to retire at the mandatory retirement age in their contract. Employees can instead request to continue working until they are 66 years of age. The new Code of Practice on Longer Working 2026 replaces the 2017 version and updates it to support the changes brought in by the 2025 Act.
Employees must provide notice:
- Not less than three months but not more than one year before the date on which the employee will reach the contractual retirement age, or
- Where the employer notification period is greater than three months, not less than the employer notification period specified or the period of six months, whichever is the shorter.
Employers are required to carefully consider any notification made under the 2025 Act. Where they decide to enforce a contractual retirement age, employers must respond in writing to the employee’s notification within one month. The written reply must set out the justification for the employer’s decision. Otherwise, an employer shall not be permitted to retire the employee before the date to which the employee consents or the date on which the employee attains pensionable age, whichever occurs first.
The 2025 Act also provides that an employer who has received a notification from an employee cannot enforce the contractual retirement age for that employee unless the retirement of that particular employee is objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim. The means of achieving that aim must also be appropriate and necessary.
Employees who believe their rights have been breached can bring a claim before the WRC. The adjudication officer has a number of options for relief available including compensation up to 104 times the employee’s weekly salary or €40,000, whichever is the greater.
The Act provides for offences under the legislation. Significantly, an employer who, without reasonable cause, fails to provide an employee with a reasoned written reply to a notification, as previously outlined, commits an offence. On summary conviction, the employer is liable to a Class A fine, imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or both.
For more information, please see our recent article on the topic:
The Employment (Contractual Retirement Ages) Act 2025 - Five things employers should know
Code of Practice on Longer Working 2026
Alongside the commencement of the 2025 Act, the Code of Practice on Longer Working 2026 came into effect on 29 June 2026. From that date, it became the relevant code of practice for the purposes of the Industrial Relations Act 1990. The 2026 Code replaces the 2017 version. Its principal aims are to add to existing best practice and provide guidance on the 2025 Act. While not legally binding, the Code is admissible in legal proceedings and serves as an important reference in disputes.
The Code provides that, where an employer accepts an employee’s notification request, arrangements should be made to reflect the employee’s continued employment in their contract of employment, as appropriate. The same applies where the employer and employee agree a new retirement date. In either case, the contract of employment should be updated to reflect the revised arrangements. The Code also provides guidance to employers and unions on updating contractual retirement age clauses in company policy and employment contracts. It also advises organisations to develop “clear internal procedures and templates to handle notification requests and company responses”. As a matter of best practice, employers should disseminate information about the relevant provisions in the 2025 Act to their supervisors and staff through awareness sessions and training courses.
Critically, the Code provides clarity on the scope of the objective justification test under the 2025 Act. It states that:
"The 2025 Act requires the objective justification test to be applied to the retirement of the employee concerned".
In this way, the test is a subjective objective justification test. An employer who has received a notification from an employee cannot enforce that employee's contractual retirement age unless the employer can objectively and reasonably justify that particular employee's retirement by reference to a legitimate aim. The means of achieving that aim must also be appropriate and necessary.
For more information, please see our recent article on the topic:
The Employment (Contractual Retirement Ages) Act 2025 - Five things employers should know
The Protection of Employees (Employers’ Insolvency) (Amendment) Act 2026
The Protection of Employees (Employers’ Insolvency) (Amendment) Act 2026 was signed by the President on 30 March and is now law.
A commencement order was published since last reporting, making a number of sections actionable as of 8 June 2026. Some provisions remain uncommenced or only partly commenced.
The most important commenced part of the Act relates to the newly ‘Deemed Insolvent Process’, a new process under the Insolvency Payments Scheme. It is designed to support workers who are owed money by their former employer. It applies where the employer ceased trading without formally entering liquidation, receivership or bankruptcy. The Scheme covers debts that fell due on or after 8 December 2024.
Pay Transparency Directive
Ireland failed to transpose the Pay Transparency Directive by the deadline of 7 June 2026.
For more information about the most recent updates and commentary surrounding Pay Transparency, see our recent articles on the topic:
One in five Irish employers see pay transparency rules as unnecessary burden
The EU Pay Transparency Directive
AI guidance
Guidance as to the use of AI tools in litigation has been published by the WRC, the Labour Court and the Court of Appeal.
From the judgment in Guerin v O’Doherty[1], it is clear that there is a positive duty to expressly disclose the use of AI in the preparation of court documents in the Irish civil courts. Failure to do so, could be viewed as misleading the court, which may trigger sanctions.
The WRC and Labour Court have not imposed the same positive duty to disclose the use of AI tools in the preparation of submissions. However, they have emphasised that:
- Parties must not mislead the tribunals, and
- All parties are responsible for the accuracy, reliability and procedural compliance of any material generated by AI.
For more information, see our recent article:
Updated guidance on AI use in workplace litigation
RSU guidance
Our Employment Law & Benefits team was recently involved in two significant cases that have major implications for how Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) are treated as remuneration in employment disputes:
X Internet Unlimited Company v Gary Rooney[2]
Mr Gary Rooney brought an unfair dismissal claim against his former employer. In a 73-page determination, published 12 August 2024, the WRC directed the employer to pay the sum of €550,131 to Mr Rooney by way of compensation for unfair dismissal.
Following this ruling, the employer appealed to the Labour Court. One of its core arguments at appeal was that the WRC should not have included RSUs in the calculation of the compensation awarded. Rather, compensation should have been based on remuneration paid for hours worked during a given look-back period.
The Labour Court agreed with this argument. It looked at the Award Agreements at issue. The Agreements contained waivers emphasising that the RSUs were not remuneration and that if the complainant’s continuous active service terminated for any reason, all RSUs for which vesting was no longer possible would be forfeited to the respondent company. The Agreements also highlighted that the provision of RSUs was voluntary and occasional, and did not create any contractual or other right to their grant. The Award Agreement included a Governing Law and Choice of Venue clause in favour of Delaware and California, USA, depending on the type of dispute. The Court held that this did not prohibit an unfair dismissal case being taken under Irish law and was therefore in breach of section 13 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977. The Court noted that Mr Rooney benefitted financially from the awards and had the opportunity over a number of years to take legal advice about them. He was therefore bound by their terms. As such, the Court held that, for the purpose of remuneration and/or loss under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 as amended, RSUs should be excluded in this case.
Caroline O’Connell v Lionbridge International Unlimited Company[3]
The former Managing Director of EMEA brought an unfair dismissal claim against her former employer.
The Adjudication Officer held that the complainant’s RSUs did not form part of her remuneration. It was noted that the complainant was employed by the respondent Irish entity. The RSU agreement was with Lionbridge Technologies LLC, a Delaware limited liability company. In circumstances where the RSU Agreement was not with the respondent, the WRC could not find that the RSUs formed part of ‘remuneration’. The RSUs represented a distinct corporate arrangement rather than a benefit provided by the employer who effected the dismissal.
For more information, please see our recent article on the topic:
Navigating US equity for Irish employees
Contact our team
There have been a number of important changes to the law in Q2 2026. For specific advice as to how these changes might affect you, contact our Employment Law & Benefits team.
The content of this article is provided for information purposes only and does not constitute legal or other advice.
[1] [2026] IECA 48.
[2] UDD2612.
[3] ADJ-00057077.