Show Notes
Episode 27 – Bryan looks at the decision of Lyons and Longford and Westmeath Education and Training Board.
In this last episode of the Matheson Employment Law Podcast Series Bryan looks at the decision of Lyons and Longford and Westmeath Education and Training Board. That’s a decision that has been extremely controversial over the past number of weeks for both employment lawyers and HR directors and it’s because in that case Judge Eager in the High Court seemed to suggest that an employee is entitled to the full range of fair procedures at the disciplinary investigation stage including the right to cross-examine witnesses and the right to be legally represented. Since that decision on 7 May last, two new decisions have come out of the High Court from Judge McDermott, in the last four weeks, and both of those decisions, depending on how you interpret the Lyons decision, appear to contradict the key point. They both deal with the same question as to the extent to which an employee is entitled to fair procedures at the preliminary investigation stage, however, they both conclude that this right is really just confined to the formal disciplinary hearing stage, the point at which a decision is made.
The decision is expected to lead to added complexity, delay and expense for employers in running internal investigations. For the very same reasons, it is being closely watched by employment lawyers and employers alike as to whether it will become the “new norm” or if it will be quickly disregarded as an outlier judgment distinguished on its particular facts. In the interim, we are already seeing some employers hold off on making any changes on foot of this decision and taking the risk on this, rather than concede this point straight off. The next episode in this podcast series will deal with two other recent decisions which address this point and which arguably qualify the point being established in Lyons.
Bryan also discusses updates on mandatory retirement ages and the positive impact for employers in the Supreme Court decision on what constitutes bullying in Ruffley v Board of Management of St Anne’s School.
More from Matheson Employment Law Podcast Series
In this two-part episode of the Matheson Employment Law Podcast Series, Bryan Dunne, Head of Employment, is joined by senior associates Rachel Kenny, Jennifer Bassett, Colum Holland, Trina Dzidonu and Ciara Taggart to examine the key employment law changes and themes that will likely be across the desks of employers and HR professionals in 2026.
In this two-part episode of the Matheson Employment Law Podcast Series, Bryan Dunne, Head of Employment, is joined by senior associates Rachel Kenny, Jennifer Bassett, Colum Holland, Trina Dzidonu and Ciara Taggart to examine the key employment law changes and themes that will likely be across the desks of employers and HR professionals in 2026.
In this episode of the Matheson Employment Law Podcast Series, Bryan Dunne, Head of Employment, is joined by partner Alice Duffy to examine the growing trend of employees using generative AI tools to draft workplace grievances, disciplinary responses and appeal submissions. The discussion explores the practical impact this is having on employers, recent WRC and Irish High Court decisions involving AI generated legal submissions, and the WRC’s new guidance on the responsible use of AI.
In this latest episode of the Matheson Employment Law Podcast Series, Bryan Dunne, Head of Employment is joined by our newest partner, Rachel Barry, and senior associate, Colum Holland, to explore two significant developments for European Works Councils: the new EWC Directive and the landmark Irish High Court decision in the Verizon case. The discussion covers changes to EWC rights, enforcement, cost awards, and practical steps for employers preparing for legislative change.
In the latest episode of the Matheson Employment Law Podcast Series, Bryan Dunne, Head of Employment, explores a whistleblowing case in ‘A Finance Manager V A Charity’. The decision offers valuable insights into how an Adjudication Officer assesses whether a communication qualifies as a protected disclosure, and crucially, how they determine if an employee has been penalised for making one. It also sets out some of the key principles from the main case law in this area for employers to be aware of when assessing whether a protected disclosure has been made and also how to successfully defend any consequent penalisation claims.