Sectoral Employment Order (Construction Sector) 2023
The following minimum hourly rates of basic pay will apply in the sector from 18th September 2023 to 4th August 2024.
• Craftsperson €21.49 per hour
• Category A Worker €20.86 per hour
• Category B Worker €19.35 per hour
Apprentice
• Year 1 - 33.33% of Craft Rate
• Year 2 - 50% of Craft Rate
• Year 3 - 75% of Craft Rate
• Year 4 - 90% of Craft Rate
A minimum hourly rate of basic pay of €15.64 will apply for two years after entrance to the Sector to all New Entrant Operative Workers who are over the age of 18 years and entering the sector for the first time.
Minimum Pension Contribution
The following minimum pension contribution will apply in the sector Pension Contribution from 18th September 2023:
• Employer daily rate - €5.96 (weekly - €29.78)
• Employee daily rate - €3.97 (weekly €19.87)
Total contribution daily into the scheme per worker - €9.93 (weekly €49.65)
More information can be found here.
What is ESG?
Employment related matters are becoming a focus from an environmental, social and governance (ESG) perspective. For employers, it can cover broad issues such as diversity and inclusion, pay transparency, workforce engagement, HR policies, health and safety and more.
Therefore, it is becoming increasingly important for employers to ensure that they comply with new legislation and new standards. Otherwise, employers will not only face standard regulatory risks but they may also be exposed from an ESG perspective. Indeed, many employers who are particularly ESG conscious are seeking to go further than the statutory employment law minimums.
In recent years a large number of legislative changes designed to improve employee rights and security have been made. This flow of legislative change is unlikely to abate anytime soon as the EU Social Taxonomy Report proposes a system to classify what constitutes "decent work". This includes pay transparency, paying the living wage, decent working hours, formal working relationships, equal opportunities, reduction of pay gaps and job creation for young people. With this in mind, it is inevitable that further employment legislation and disclosure requirements are likely to come in over the coming years.
Diversity and inclusion
Diversity and inclusion has in recent years generated significant media attention. Positioning the promotion of an inclusive culture at the forefront of a company's business outlook is the way forward for businesses keen to secure a fully-rounded ESG strategy.
Diversity makes good business sense. Ethnic, gender and cultural diversity in management has been shown to boost business and is linked to both profitability and value creation.
From the social standpoint there are huge expectations on companies from employees, business partners and investors to have a strong focus on diversity and inclusion in the workplace. This is particularly the case amongst the younger generations of workers who are increasingly assessing employers' diversity and inclusion credentials when weighing up employment options.
The Gender Pay Gap Information Act 2021 required employers to publish details of the mean and median hourly pay and bonuses for men and women, the percentage receiving bonuses or benefits-in-kind, explanations for any gender pay gap that arose, and measures they will take to eliminate or reduce this gap. Currently in Ireland, employers with 250 or more employees have had to publish gender pay gap reports - but by 2024, this threshold will drop to just 150 employees and then 50 employees by 2025. More details can be found here.
There is due to be further legislative development in this area as the recently agreed Pay Transparency Directive (the ''Directive'') will soon require the further expansion of statutory obligations on employers in Ireland in respect of gender equality.
Under the Directive, companies will additionally be required to report the disparity of pay between genders, based on categories of workers, who are doing the same work or work of equal value. Member States will be required to establish clear criteria to assess and compare what qualifies as value for work in line with a set of objective criteria, which include educational, professional and training requirements, skills, effort and responsibility, work undertaken and the nature of the tasks involved.
One of the other key provisions of the Directive is the concept of a ''joint pay assessment,'' which will require a company to carry out an assessment where a gender pay gap report identifies a gap of at least 5% in any category of work and where that gap cannot be justified based on gender-neutral factors. Under the Directive, additional pre-employment provisions will also be implemented, whereby employers will now be precluded from inquiring as to an applicant's salary history, while also obliging companies to disclose the initial pay range for the advertised role.
While Irish legislation has not yet been drafted or initiated, the implementation date of the Directive is expected in 2024.
Parental Leave Case Law Example
The Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) case of Elizabeth O’Reilly v Avista CLG was brought under Section 18 of the Parental Leave Act 1998 (“the Act”) in respect of the Complainant’s persistent issues with her employer in respect of her applications for parental leave. The Adjudicator confirmed that parental leave is an entitlement and that the Act only requires notice and not an application for approval unless an employee is applying for a period of parental leave that is shorter than a block of six weeks. On that basis, the Adjudicator directed the Respondent to amend its Parental Leave Policy to remove any requirement for approval for parental leave unless requested for a period of less than six weeks. She also ordered that the Respondent confirm the Complainant’s parental leave applications for 2024 and 2025 no later than 1st June 2023.
Facts: The Complainant was employed as a social care worker by the Respondent from October 2002. The Respondent provides housing support for people with intellectual disabilities and complex needs. Having had her first child in 2011, in 2014 the Complainant applied for parental leave which she intended to take in 2015. The Respondent agreed to providing this by reducing her hours over a period of 62 weeks. However, the Complainant made a number of further applications for parental leave, all of which were refused or altered by the Respondent. The leave requests were:
- In 2017, she applied for one 7-week leave block to be taken in the summer
- In 2018, she applied for one 7-week leave block to be taken that summer
Both of these requests were refused on the basis that the Respondent would be required to get agency workers to fill in for the Complainant. The Complainant submitted a claim to the WRC, which resulted in a failed mediation and the matter was returned to be heard by an Adjudicator. In 2019, the Complainant applied for parental leave by reducing her hours and this was also refused. Further requests for parental leave made in April and May were also refused so she brought a further claim to the WRC in February 2020. The Respondent requested details of her plans for the next five years, but the Complainant wanted to make an application on an annual basis. After failed mediation for this claim, it was returned to be heard by an Adjudicator, but was withdrawn by the Complainant when she was granted her leave for a 6-week block in August and September 2021. On foot of this, the Complainant made a further application in October 2021 for 7 weeks in 2022, which was again refused. This time the Respondent stated that it was being refused as one block but approved the parental leave to be taken by way of a reduction to her working hours. The reason given for this was to allow all employees two weeks holidays during the summer. Further requests for a block of leave for 2023, 2024 and 2025 or for reduced hours were not confirmed by the Respondent. It stated that it would confirm with the Complainant by 30th April each year and argued at the hearing that this met its obligation as it was in excess of the 4 weeks’ notice required to be given under the Act.
Decision: Section 6 (1) of the Act states that
“An employee who is a relevant parent in respect of a child shall?be entitled?to leave from his or her employment, to be known and referred to in this Act as ‘parental leave’, for a period of 18 working weeks to enable him or her to take care of the child”. From September 2020, this period was increased to 26 weeks.
In order to avail of this entitlement, section 8 requires the employee to provide notice in writing to his employer at least six weeks in advance of the start date of the leave. The Adjudicator pointed out that the requirement to give “notice” is not a requirement to seek “approval” and she compared it to the entitlement in respect of maternity leave.
Section 11(1) of the Act provides for an employer to refuse the parental leave only on a limited basis – were
“the employer is satisfied that the taking of parental leave at the time specified in the notice would have a substantial adverse effect on the operation of his or her business, profession or occupation by reason of seasonal variations in the volume of the work concerned, the unavailability of a person to carry out the duties of the employee in the employment, the nature of those duties, the number of employees in the employment or the number thereof whose periods, or parts of whose periods of parental leave will fall within the period specified in the said notice or any other relevant matters, the employer may, by notice in writing given to the employee not later than 4 weeks before the intended commencement of the leave, postpone the commencement of the leave to such time not later than 6 months after the date of commencement specified in the relevant notice under section 8(1) as may be agreed upon by the employer and the employee”.
The Adjudicator pointed out that “employers are required to find ways to enable their employee to balance their family life with their working life”. The Adjudicator stated that where the employer does not meet the required justifications set out in Section 11(1) than parental leave may only be postponed by agreement between the employee and employer and the employer does not discretion to refuse an employee who gives notice of his or her intention to take parental leave.
The Adjudicator noted that the Respondent had not argued that it was “swamped” with applications for parental leave during the summer months. Perhaps if it had, there would have been grounds to refuse the application until a later date.
The Respondent’s Parental Leave Policy contains the following clause:
“Application for Parental Leave should be approved by your Senior Manager/Service Manager and then submitted to Human Resources for final approval in your Centre of Employment, not later than six weeks before the proposed commencement date under section 8(1) of the Act.”
The Adjudicator stated that this policy was misleading as it suggests that managers have discretion to “approve” an application and in fact provides for managers and HR to provide “final approval”. The Adjudicator therefore directed the Respondent to amend its policy and remove the word “approval” except in respect of parental leave requests for periods that are shorter than 6-week blocks.
The Adjudicator further directed the Respondent to provide confirmation to the Complainant of her parental leave for the summer of 2024 and 2025 by 1st June 2023 and to ensure that it has adequate cover for her parental leave of 2023, 2024 and 2025 as it had been given plenty of notice to provide same.
Takeaway for Employers: This decision clearly illustrates that employers must facilitate the taking of parental leave when sought to be taken in a minimum of a 6-week block and that an employer may only postpone such a request by no more than six months if it meets the justifications set out in section 11(1). The decision reminds employers that approval can only be sought if the request for parental leave is for a period of less than a 6-week block.
