An Employer v A Worker (EDA2626) is an interesting recent Labour Court case which considered the enforceability of a settlement agreement waiving an employee’s right to bring a claim against their employer. In this case, the Employer had appealed the Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) decision which found that the waiver in the settlement agreement was not enforceable and the case could proceed.
Facts:
Background
The Complainant was employed by the Respondent from July 1996 to May 2023. The Complainant signed a severance agreement with the Respondent on 3 May 2023 and the Respondent made payments to the Complainant on foot of this agreement. On 2 November 2023 the Complainant submitted a complaint to the WRC under the Employment Equality Acts 1998-2015 (the “Acts”) alleging discrimination on the ground of age together with victimisation.
Prior to the first WRC hearing, the Respondent raised the preliminary issue that the WRC did not have jurisdiction to hear the case as the Complainant had waived his statutory right to refer a case under the Acts. At the WRC hearing the Adjudicator confirmed to the parties she would investigate the jurisdiction matter as a preliminary issue, which would determine whether the case could proceed. Interestingly, the WRC Adjudicator determined special circumstances existed for the hearings to be held in private and decision anonymised in circumstances where the preliminary issue concerned the validity of a waiver clause in a settlement agreement, which included a non-disclosure clause.
The WRC Adjudicator held the waiver in the settlement agreement was not valid and enforceable as she was not satisfied the waiver was based on informed consent. The Adjudicator focused in particular on the settlement meeting on 3 May 2023, where she found the Complainant was not afforded an opportunity to go through it in his own time and in a private manner.
Appeal
The Employer appealed the WRC decision to the Labour Court. At the hearing the Complainant acknowledged signing the settlement agreement but gave evidence that he did so under emotional stress which affected his ability to fully understand the legal implications of waiving his rights. The Complainant submitted that he did not have access to the draft settlement agreement in advance of the day of signing, as it was sent to his work email and he was not in work that day. The Complainant confirmed he had trade union representation at all stages (Unite) but submitted that trade union advice did not meet the legal standard for making such a decision. The Complainant argued that it was a legal necessity to get independent professional legal advice before waiving his rights and it was a fundamental failure by the Respondent not to provide him with his own qualified legal counsel. The Complainant also gave evidence that the €25,000 ex-gratia felt inadequate and did not fairly reflect his twenty-seven years of service. He confirmed to the Labour Court that he had not returned the money to the Respondent.
On cross-examination from the Respondent’s counsel the Complainant accepted that recent disciplinary warnings (including a final written warning in January 2023) were the context in which discussions around an exit settlement took place. The Complainant’s union negotiated a settlement however the offer was withdrawn by the Respondent after a certain time (the Complainant stated he didn’t know the offer had a time limit) and the Complainant asked his union to request that the offer be put back on the table. In response to a question by the Labour Court, the Complainant stated he first decided he was not happy with the agreement at some stage after he received the settlement money, but he was not sure exactly when.
Decision:
The Labour Court upheld the Employer’s appeal and overturned the decision of the WRC. The Labour Court noted that the Complainant was in a difficult position at that time and asked his union to try and get a deal for him. The Labour Court also noted it was not disputed that the Complainant did not receive the draft settlement agreement in advance of the settlement meeting, as he was no longer using his work email. However, the Labour Court gave particular consideration to the period following the signing of the agreement on 3 May and the actual implementation of the terms of agreement (i.e. payment of the settlement monies on 19 June & 10 July 2023). The Labour Court noted that during these intervening weeks the Complainant had multiple engagements with the Respondent and at the time of payment the Complainant had a copy of the agreement for circa six weeks. The Labour Court commented as follows:
“The Court finds that this was sufficient time for the Complainant to familiarise himself with the content of same, seek legal advice if he felt the need to and to raise any concerns he had with the Respondent. During that period of time the Complainant did not raise any concerns with the Respondent. Instead, he actively sought implementation of the agreement.”
On the basis of the above, the Labour Court found the waiver was valid and enforceable.
Takeaway for Employers:
The Labour Court made it clear the waiver was valid and enforceable in this specific case because at the time of the agreement’s implementation, the Complainant had the agreement in his possession for a number of weeks and raised no issue. In our view best practice would involve:
However, these matters are never straightforward and this case highlights the incredibly delicate nature of settlement discussions and any subsequent agreement reached between the parties. Employers should seek legal advice before engaging in such negotiations and regarding any potential draft settlement agreement.
Separately, it is worth noting that the parties can request the names to be anonymised and hearing in private where there is a settlement agreement in place with a non-disclosure clause. This is especially where the basis for a settlement is to avoid any unwanted publicity.
Links:
Labour Court Decision:
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2026/july/eda2626.html
WRC Decision:
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2024/september/adj-00048678.html
Authors – Tara Kelly and Anne O’Connell
17th August 2026
If you found this article useful you might like our employment law newsletter. We write monthly articles, like this, covering interesting cases, decisions, news and developments in Ireland.