WRC held that demotion without fair process breached fixed-term worker rights.

The Complainant, a H.R. professional, was employed by the Respondent from June 2021 until resignation in September 2024. From August 2022 to May 2024, she held a fixed-term contract as a HR Business Partner. She claims she was treated less favourably than a comparable permanent employee, particularly in terms of protections under disciplinary and grievance policies. In March 2024, following her involvement in a sensitive pay alignment project, she was demoted without prior notice or due process by HR Director. This followed an email in mid-March raising a grievance, which she contended was a protected act under the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003. She argued her demotion, exclusion from fair procedures, and subsequent disciplinary process amounted to penalisation for asserting her employment rights. She maintained that permanent employees were not subjected to similar treatment, and the Director, as both subject of her grievance and decision-maker, acted in a fundamentally flawed and biased manner. The Complainant also claimed unlawful deduction of wages under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 amounting to €2,004.

The Respondent argued that the Complainant’s claims duplicated existing proceedings, contrary to the principle in Henderson v Henderson. They asserted the Complainant was employed on a fixed-term basis to cover maternity leave from July 2022 until May 2024, and the temporary role was properly concluded upon the substantive post holder’s return. In March 2024, the Complainant was returned to her Grade V substantive role after a serious governance failure involving unauthorised regrading and payments. The Respondent stated the decision was not disciplinary but an end to an acting-up arrangement in line with policy. The Complainant continued to receive Grade VII pay until June 2024, despite not performing that role. The Respondent maintained no penalisation occurred and that her contractual wages were fully paid. They contended she was not treated less favourably than permanent staff and was, in fact, treated generously. The disciplinary process arose from genuine governance concerns, not retaliation.

The Adjudicating Officer found that the Complainant was employed in an acting-up fixed-term role, which was terminated following a serious performance issue. Although the Complainant was not solely responsible, her demotion lacked the basic principles of fair procedure, including prior notice or an opportunity to respond. The Adjudicating Officer held that the Respondent failed to treat her fairly due to her fixed-term status and that this constituted less favourable treatment under the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003. However, they concluded that her email did not amount to a formal grievance or a protected act, and thus her penalisation claim failed. The Payment of Wages claim also failed, as no wages were “properly payable” beyond the contract's end. Accordingly, they upheld the first complaint and awarded €7,500 in compensation but dismissed the penalisation and payment of wages complaints as they were not well-founded.

• This case highlights the importance of applying fair procedures equally to all employees, regardless of contract type. Employers must not assume that the temporary or fixed-term nature of a contract exempts them from obligations around due process, especially when taking adverse action such as demotion. Any disciplinary response should involve prior notice, an opportunity to respond, and equitable treatment compared to permanent staff.  
   
  
• The decision also illustrates the risk of failing to clearly communicate or document grievance processes and contract terms. Employers should ensure acting-up arrangements are regularly reviewed and documented, in line with relevant policies (e.g., HSE Circulars), and that those in such roles understand their status and rights. Relying on implied understandings or failing to follow internal grievance procedures can expose employers to claims.

The full case can be found here:
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2025/may/adj-00053658.html