Ireland's approach to contractual retirement ages changed significantly on 29 June 2026 with the commencement of the Employment (Contractual Retirement Ages) Act 2025 and the updated Code of Practice on Longer Working.

These changes introduce a new consent-based framework that will affect how employers manage retirement, employee requests to work beyond retirement age, and the drafting of contracts and workplace policies.

Laura McKee of Legal Island is joined by Anne O'Connell of Anne O'Connell Solicitors, who explains what the new framework means in practice and the steps employers should be taking now.

This webinar explores:

1. How the new legislation interacts with existing equality law

2. Practical changes employers should make to contracts, policies and retirement procedures

3. Managing requests to continue working beyond retirement age while minimising legal risk

4. Common pitfalls and practical tips for HR professionals and managers.

Transcript:

Laura: You are very welcome to this morning's webinar sponsored by HRLocker. My name is Laura, and I'm from Legal-Island, and I will be facilitating today's session. I'm delighted to be joined by Anne O'Connell.

Anne was qualified as a solicitor in 2001 and as a New York attorney, and she is the founder and principal of the firm Anne O'Connell Solicitors that specialises in employment law. So, Anne has acted in the largest international case taken by Ireland to date and also acted in a European case that led to the amendment to Ireland's Constitution. Anne advises multinational companies, semi-state companies, small businesses, and employees in all areas of employment law, particularly issues that were likely to become contentious. She has over two decades of specialist employment law experience, and she formed her own specialist boutique employment law firm in 2017.

What are we talking about today? Well, we all know on 29 June, Ireland's approach to contractual retirement age changed significantly following the commencement of the Employment (Contractual Retirement Ages) Act 2025 and the updated Code of Practice on Longer Working.

Over the next 45 minutes, Anne will walk you through this new legal framework, explaining what the legislative changes mean in practice, and she will outline the practical steps employers need to take to ensure that they are compliant.

Please feel free to submit your questions at any time using the Q&A feature on GoToWebinar, and I will make sure to put them to Anne at the end of the webinar.

Also, just a reminder, you will get a copy of the slides in the email that will be sent out post the event.

Just a thank you to our sponsors who are HRLocker. HRLocker is an all-in-one HR software platform that simplifies people management for growing businesses. From leave requests and time tracking to performance reviews and employee records, it brings everything into one easy-to-use system. As your team grows, scaling with HRLocker is scaling with confidence.

And before we get started in the webinar today, make sure you do check out Legal-Island's Employment Law Hub to get your 14-day free trial to access all of the quality materials on our hub.

And Gosia, my colleague, has dropped in an article on this very topic that you can access if you are subscribed.

Before we get started, finally, I want to do a couple of polls that really help shape Legal-Island's events.

The first question is, "Which of the following topics would you most like to see covered at a future Legal-Island event?" So is it intergenerational workforces, how to recruit and retain talent, reasonable accommodation and disability, or hybrid working? I'll just give you a moment to fill out that. Super.

The next question will come up now, and from the second list, the question is, "Which topics would you most like to see covered?" The first is the art of difficult conversations and how to get them right in the workplace; how to deal with AI-generated employment complaints; or protected disclosures.

Super. Thanks so much, Gosia, for those polls. Now I'm delighted to hand over to Anne. Thanks so much, Anne.

Anne:  Thanks, Laura. Good morning, everybody. Nice to have a slightly cooler morning today to listen and hopefully take part in this webinar.

I just realised this morning that I didn't actually name the act of my slides. My slides are more dense than I usually would do them just because these are your takeaway notes. That's why they are so dense, so they can be more useful for you afterwards.

The changes that occurred on 29 June are coming into effect of the Employment (Contractual Retirement Age) Act 2025, and then that led to the updated Code of Practice on Longer Working. So that's what we're going to be discussing today.

If you go to the next slide. Unfortunately, my technology wasn't great, so Gosia is doing the slides for me.

So why is this important and why do you need to take the time out today to review this? It's because there is practical change for employers, basically, if any of your contracts have a retirement age that is below the state pension age, which is currently 66.

I know we advised our clients, when the state age changed, to change the retirement age to 66 because a lot of cases were . . to enforce it, that year gap was . . . they were getting sympathy when they went to challenge it. So if you went to the state pensionable age, then it was easier to enforce.

And now any of our clients that have changed it, it's great because they don't have to worry now about this Act because it's only where the contractual retirement age is below 66.

So, it changes. It brings another new regime. Now, there's the other regime is still there, but it brings in strict time limits that if you don't comply with it, there are potentially serious consequences, including criminal sanctions.

The webinar today is going to focus on what HR teams and advisers need to do now, which is to identify the affected. So we're going to identify the affected employees, update processes, prepare evidence-based responses, and avoid common implementation mistakes.

So, go to the next slide. Going through this, we're going to first set out the legal context, and then I'm going to explain the new statutory right and the employer obligations, and then I'm going to focus on the risk management and practical implementation tips that all different size companies can apply.

This webinar is designed to be practical but also highlighting the legal issues where you've got solicitors advising employers that we'll need to consider.

The next slide. The previous position, as you probably all know, is that the Irish private sector employers traditionally relied on contractual terms, policies, pension arrangements, or custom and practice to establish the retirement ages that applied.

However, even before this new Act, a compulsory retirement age could not simply be imposed because it appeared in a contract. It had to be objectively justified under the Employment Equality Acts.

Now, that justification really was emphasised where there were different retirement ages between different groups of employees. If you had the one retirement age across all of your employees, it wasn't as harsh or as hard to differentiate them.

And the Supreme Court case decision in Mallon did state that employers don't have to do individual assessments in relation to the objective justification. It doesn't have to be individual employee basis. Once it's an objective justification that applies to everybody, it meets the business needs, and you can show that it's not just a generic statement, that was sufficient to meet the requirements that were in place before this new Act, which is still in place, but for those before this came in.

The new Act doesn't remove that concept. Instead, it creates an additional statutory pathway for employees approaching the retirement age below the state pension age. So, it's just more obligations and work for HR and employers.

The new statutory rights, it's very much an emphasis on the employee's notification. The employee doesn't have to make a traditional request for permission to stay. It's different and it's not looking for permission. Instead, first you have to see is the employee within the scope of the Act? So, they need to be below the state pension retirement age and they need to be after the probation period. They need to have successfully completed a probation period and they need to be below the state pension retirement age. Then they're covered by the Act.

They don't have to, but they can notify the employer that they do not consent to retirement on the contractual retirement age. That notification must be valid. But once it's valid, then the employer position changes. The employer can't simply proceed with the retirement age unless it meets the statutory test and issues a reasoned written reply within the required time frame of one month. And that's a strict timeline. And so that's the major change.

So, the Act is not a general right for all older workers to remain indefinitely in employment. It's targeted at the gap that I mentioned at the beginning between the contractual retirement age below 66 and the current state pension age.

And that, I think, will become more obvious if they do actually go with what the government have been talking about for ages and change the state pension age. If they increase that age, which they've been threatening to do for the last number of years, then that gap becomes bigger. And I think that this legislation is brought in now to make it easier for the government to do that.

So, for example, if an employee's contract says retirement is at 65, an employee under the new Act now may seek to continue to 66, the current state pension age. But if the employee is already 66 or older, then they move into the separate pathway, which is the Code of Practice process rather than the statutory notification regime.

If all of your contracts have 66, or the state pension age, as your retirement age, you don't need to worry about the Act at all. You just need to look at the updated Code of Practice.

The key thing to note is the notification rules under the new Act. They're technical, so they need to be complied with precisely.

You shouldn't treat an informal comment as necessarily engaging the statutory regime, because it actually doesn't amount to a valid notification. The notification needs to be in writing and needs to be within the correct window time frame, which can be at least three months. But if your contract for notice is at least six months, it can be up to six months in advance of retirement age, but no more than one year before the contractual retirement age. So, it's within that time frame.

It needs to expressly in writing state that the employee does not consent to retire, and it also needs to refer to Section 5, Subsection 1 of the 2025 Act. It needs all of those elements in the written notification for it to be a valid notification.

Now, there are templates under the Code of Practice that can be used. And depending on the size of your workforce, if you want, rather than trying to catch an employee out that it's not a valid notification and, "Go do it again", it might be better off that you have a policy and you have, "This is the notification that is required if you want to use that right".

Employers should have an acknowledgement template and sort of a triage process so that the one-month response deadline is identified immediately upon receipt of the notification. That one month, there's no extension to it. And if you don't act within the one month, then the retirement age is invalid. You can't enforce it. And not only that, but if you try and enforce it, it can be a criminal sanction then.

The deadlines if you want to enforce these . . . The contractual retirement age we're talking about, which is below the 66 years of age. If you want to enforce it, then you must, within one month, issue a reasoned written reply stating that you're going to enforce the retirement age, and also setting out the justification as to why you are enforcing the retirement age based on that specific employee's circumstances.

Contrary to the Supreme Court decision in Mallon, this Act has now brought back in the individual assessment. So, it's not enough to say it's a generic health and safety issue if this particular role isn't a health and safety or safety-critical role. That won't apply. Or if this person is as fit as a fiddle, that's not going to apply to this individual.

If you're relying on intergenerational fairness or succession planning, then make sure that you have evidence to back that up, that you do have younger employees being trained and making their way up, or that there are others that are waiting to be promoted that are due to be promoted, and you know that there is evidence base there to back it up if challenged. Actually, that should be set out in writing.

There is a bit of work. You need to gather facts, consider the role, assess the proposed justification, take legal advice if necessary, and produce a written decision. You've very short time to do that when you have a load of other things to be doing as well, and you don't know how many you're going to get of these at any one time.

The risk is not just, as I said, that the retirement decision may be challenged. The legislation also provides for criminal sanctions where the reasonable reply is not provided without a reasonable cause.

There is an exception that if you can have a reasonable cause that you can't do it, like some dramatic something happens that you're in hospital or there was nobody else to do it. While it does say reasonable cause, that bar is actually quite high, interpreted by the WRC.

The criminal sanction is a fine not exceeding €5,000 and/or imprisonment for 12 months. So it's something that I'd say . . . we haven't had criminal sanctions for such procedures before. It'll be interesting to see will it be imposed as an example. If or when it is, you don't want to be the company that is the first one to be imposed on.

The legitimate aims, they're similar to the same ones that are in place where you're looking at the mandatory retirement age that has been in place before the Act and also where they are at state pension age. So, the health and safety succession planning, intergenerational fairness. But as I said, it needs to be specific. The key message is that you need to have evidence, individual assessment, and proportionality.

Here are the two tracks. Under the Act, the statute, if they're under 66, they're under the pension age. Obviously, that 66 will change if the pension age changes. Then you follow what's on the left side of the slide.

Many mistakes arise where an employer may apply the same process to every older worker, but that's not going to comply with either side. So, employees approaching contractual retirement age below 66, you go with the statutory regime. Employees age 66 and over are dealt with under the request to work longer process in the Code of Practice.

The key practical recommendation will be to set up a try-out system or sort of a mini process on a pilot for yourselves so that you first identify the age of the employee, the contractual retirement age. Is that below the state pension age? Is the employee within the probation status? What's the status on the probation period? And is the notification valid? They're the checklists first that need to be complied with. Then if you're in the contractual regime, you're looking at justification on individual basis.

For those that are outside the statutory regime that are 66 and over, the updated code hasn't abandoned the older, longer working process.

Sorry, I meant to say the next slide. If you go to the previous one before . . . Go back again. No, back again. Oh, is there one missing? Employees aged 66. It's Slide 11. The next one. Yeah, that one. Sorry, I thought I was moving the slides forward on my own computer. I'm sorry about that.

So, on this slide, it's just the updated data code. They haven't abandoned the older, longer working process. It's just that for employees aged 66 and older, the language is more recognisable. The employee makes a request, the employer meets them, considers the case fairly and objectively, whatever that really means, and then gives a decision. But you don't have those strict deadlines that you do.

Now, it is three months before the retirement age that the request needs to be in from the employee under the Code of Practice. And the employer needs to be replying within a reasonable period, as soon as reasonably possible. But it isn't the definitive one month that is in the statutory regime.

If an employer agrees, then it may use a post-retirement fixed-term contract, but be careful on the fixed term. The term shouldn't be automatic or age-based only. The fixed term itself needs to be an objective justification.

If you're having a fixed term for a year, it's like, "Well, this is the basis why it's one year", and then it's going to be reviewed.

And at the end of each fixed-term contract, you still have that case where you have to give an objective justification as to why you're renewing a fixed-term contract rather than giving a contract for indefinite duration. Even though they're post-retirement, that obligation is still there for that. So there is a tricky situation.

We've had a client recently who the employee was so fit, they were now giving the fourth, and that meant that they were going to be on a contract for indefinite duration. They couldn't justify it, so they just gave them a contract for indefinite duration because it was just going to be so much more hassle if they gave it another fixed-term contract and tried to argue that it was a [inaudible 00:22:16] fixed-term contract.

Another thing that you need to be very aware of, obviously, is the risk of penalisation. And this can happen where the retirement issue itself is still being considered, like where a practical a manager may become frustrated because the employee's continued employment is affecting the succession planning, or it's promotion opportunities or staffing plans that a manager may have had.

Or even the individual that thought that they were going to get promoted, now this person isn't retired. They've been waiting. Penalisation doesn't always have to come from above. Penalisation treatment can come from colleagues as well. It usually comes from above, but they can do certain things or make certain things happen that could have a detrimental impact on that person.

So, HR again is on to make sure that any subsequent performance management, restructuring, or changes or exclusion from opportunities are objectively justified and they're unrelated to the notification that they request longer working or that they refuse to consent to the contractual retirement age.

The remedies under the Act are actually quite significant because they get compensation up to 2 years or €40,000, whichever is the greater. So that's the same as the Employment Equality Act. Or they can award reinstatement or re-engagement.

Now, what's not clear is whether or not that award is financial loss and is taxable or not taxable. That's not quite clear yet, and I'd say that might be a case-by-case basis. But if it's loss of income, I would imagine that it would be more taxable than not.

Then you also have the possibility of criminal sanction if the employer has failed to provide reasoned written reply in relation to why they are enforcing the contractual retirement age.

So, the key thing then would be to build sort of a compliance system rather than dealing with notifications on an ad hoc basis, because the consequences are too great to do that.

I know I'm throwing this all at you in one quick go. So, in relation to a practical case study, I thought, just to see that it makes sense, the scenario . . . Say a contract says the retirement age is at 65, and 3 months before turning 65, the employee writes to HR stating that they do not consent to retire and wish to continue until 66.

The key things. First, HR or the employer should be checking the validity of the notification. Did they mention Section 5 of the Act? Are they within or outside the probationary period? Are they within the scope of the Act?

Then you need to identify who is going to make the decision in relation to whether or not to let the employee work up to 66 or to enforce the retirement age. What evidence have you gathered and can consider as to whether the employment is continued and/or would the continued employment create a genuine issue for the company?

Then if the employer or the company cannot produce an individualised evidence-based justification, the safer course would be to allow the employee to continue until the age of 66, or an agreed date. If they don't want to go as far as 66, there can be an alternative date.

So, that's how it operates in practice. It's not just, "Oh, they've requested it. I must now get a justification and do so within one month". No. Is it valid? Do they come within the scope of the Act first before you go to the next steps?

Next slide. Sorry, I keep forgetting. I just set out this sort of action plan in an ideal world where people have time. These are sort of like a short compliance project to try key deliverables.

You know that your workforces might be of different sizes, and it'd be a good reason to see the different levels of retirement age, to do an audit of where the workforce is in relation to the contractual retirement age.

And then update the policy or draft a new policy in relation to retirement and where they request to work beyond the contractual, where they're actually not agreeing to retire at the contractual age.

There's no point hiding away from it, because they have the right. So it would be much easier for you to deal with it if you put a policy. Then they all do it the same way, and it'll make it much easier than to try and go, "Oh, they mightn't do it, or they mightn't reply". Then you're going to get different types, different forms, and then you're going to have to go back on them that it's not compliant, or why. So it's better to have a policy.

Also, what will cause more hassle for HR, I imagine, will be that the employee can withdraw their notification, which is quite unusual. They can withdraw it by giving the employer the same notice entitlement that they have in the contract or under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts, whichever is the shorter.

Now, I initially thought, "Hold on a minute. The statutory notice for employees would be shorter, because under the statute, the employee only has to give an employer one week's notice".

But actually, this Act didn't refer to that section. It referred to the section of the Act that says where the employer has to give notice of termination to the employee. So that's the notice criteria. It's basically based on service.

But if the employee has less than two years' service, that could be a week. So you could be gathering information, get this notification, start working on it, and then they could withdraw it on one week's notice after you're doing all the work.

So, there is a limit that they can only give 2 notifications in a 12-month period, no more than 2. But you can see how this could become a problem for certain types of employees where they just keep putting it in, and not sure, and pulling it out. It could be an administrative nightmare.

So, a good written drafted policy could address that for you, and a manager guide. With all HR's work, you know one manager could destroy it by just saying the wrong thing. Also better to avoid any potential penalisation or implied penalisation.

Have template letters, a decision-making checklist, and then a central record of notifications, if you can, where the one month is automatically then triggered. It's nearly automatic.

Another thing to consider is benefits and insurance arrangements, whether it is health insurance or life insurance. If you give those benefits, you need to be careful and check with the company as to whether or not they can continue beyond the contractual retirement age. Can they continue beyond 65?

 A number of them can't, but the employees have to be notified that they will no longer have those benefits because that will be a change. Even in the Terms of Employment Act, they need to be notified that they no longer apply in writing. So that's another thing that needs to be looked at.

Next slide, just the key takeaways. First, identify which regime applies when an employee notifies you that they don't want to retire at the retirement age. Do not miss the one-month deadline, and do not rely on generic retirement justifications without evidence where the employee comes under the Act.

For solicitors advising employers, the key with helping clients would be moved from the broad retirement policies to defensible, role-specific, and employee-specific decision-making for just those coming under the Act. The alternative is to try and change retirement ages to the state pension age, and then you don't have to deal with that, as much as you can.

 So that is my run-through. Just to conclude, it's about the next slide, policies, deadlines, justifications. If you go to the next slide. That was a very quick run-through, but hopefully that's clearer to everybody.

Laura:  Anne, thank you so much. That was very comprehensive and great to have those set of slides, which we will share with delegates afterwards. So that was excellent. Thank you.

We do have lots of questions coming in. I'll try and get through as many of them as possible.

Anne:  Great.

Laura:  There are a couple of questions around public sector. Does this Act apply to the public sector? I understand there are public sector employees that might have a compulsory retirement age of 70. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Anne: No, it doesn't apply to anybody that has a statutory retirement age, like the Defence Forces and the public bodies. The public bodies' retirement age is above the state pension age. This Act only applies to where the retirement age is below the state pension age, so it wouldn't apply to public bodies.

Laura:  So, it's a very specific pool?

Anne:  Yeah. And there are certain Defence Forces and Fire Brigade that have it below the state pension, but they are on statute, so it doesn't apply to them. But the public bodies are over it, so it wouldn't apply either.

Laura: Great. Thank you. A question here around . . . yeah, I think you've already answered this. What about employees that are approaching the age of 70? Wasn't there a mandatory retirement age of 70 in the Retirement Bill in 2019? But I suppose . . .

Anne:  Yeah, that's all changed. Again, that's not going to be addressed by this Act because this Act is only for employees that are retiring, that the contractual retirement age is below 66.

Laura:  Brilliant. Thank you. Question here, "We have removed pension age from contracts altogether. What is your stance on this in relation to the new legislation?"

Anne:  Then they won't be applying for it. So, in that case, then your staff won't be making the request under the Act unless you apply a retirement age in line with the pension, or life insurance, or if there's another scheme that you apply.

But if you're a company that doesn't apply any mandatory retirement age, then you don't have to worry about the Act. Like I said, don't worry about it. It's only where a company actually does apply a mandatory retirement age.

Laura:  Okay. So, there's a question here related to that. In a case where an employee was given a contract of indefinite duration, does that mean that they can now retire whenever they want to?

Anne:  No. While the contract of indefinite duration is addressing the fixed term, and it is a pain to deal with this, you can still set another retirement age in that. It just can't be another fixed-term contract, but you can still refer to the retirement age. And you're going back to your objective justifications as well. You can still put that in the new contract of indefinite duration.

Laura:  Great. Thanks, Anne. Question here. "We have 65 in our contracts. Where an employee requests to stay until 66, and we agree with the employee staying until 66, what paperwork needs to be provided to the employee? So here, we have pension, death, and service obligations that will cease at 65. How do we manage communicating this to the employee when we are not issuing a fixed-term contract to them?"

Anne: Well, once they have made the request, you would go back and acknowledge the request first, and then I would respond to the employee in writing agreeing to the . . . if you're agreeing to the request, accepting and agreeing to the request.

Set out then the new retirement age. You need to actually inform them, "Well, then 66 . . . Is it on the birthday, or is it at the end of the month that he reaches 66?" Be very clear as to the new thing.

And then put a paragraph that, "These things . . . you will not benefit going forward because they're not insured after 65". And you can put it all in the one letter. What's really important is to have it in writing.

Laura:  Super. Thank you.

"We ask employees to complete a risk assessment with their line manager and our safety officer to ensure they are fit for all of their duties of their role as part of their application to remain after retirement age. Do you see any issue with this?"

Anne:  So, if the retirement age is below the state pension age, that might be challenged because the employee has now an entitlement to not agree to the contractual retirement age. So that process could be implied that they need to justify their capability or capacity to actually remain. It seems okay, but it is putting the obligation on the employee.

Once you have a justification for doing it and once, they are fit, that you do allow them to continue, then that's fine. But if it isn't a safety-critical role and if it's a desk job or it's something that you don't really need to go through a safety assessment, it just might be one step. You could see an employee might say, "Well, why do I need to do this step? Don't you have to actually justify imposing the retirement age?" So, you might have an issue with it.

Laura:  Okay. Thank you. I'm firing lots of questions at you here. They're coming in very quick.

"If an employee who's been accommodated in a position due to medical reasons requests an extension to age 66, can the employer provide this as justification for not extending the contract? The employee continues to be paid at their higher rate of salary than the rate normally associated with that role".

Anne:  Yeah, so that's . . . I mean, obviously you'd have the medical assessment and the medical record of that individual. You've got to be careful that you're not crossing over to the discrimination elements. Just because you might be compliant with the Contractual Retirement Ages Act doesn't mean you're not exposed to discrimination on disability as well.

So, you'd need to be careful in relation to have you enforced the retirement age for others and you're just . . . You'll have to look at it from both angles. Is the reasonable accommodation too expensive or excessive for you to do it for another year until the retirement age? Is it disproportionate?

If it's disproportionate, you actually will be assessing that again against the equality, I think, depending on how you've enforced the retirement age for other employees. So, you need to look at it from that point of view.

Laura: Great. Thank you. I'll just take a couple of more questions, if that's okay.

So, can a contract of employment refer to a retirement age in line with the age for receipt of state pension, or must it state an actual age?

Anne:  No. The way we drafted it, we refer to the state pension even if you don't qualify for it. You've got to remember that there are certain employees that have come from abroad that mightn't qualify for the state pension at the time. We refer to the state's contribution pension age, which we say, "Which currently is 66".

It's good to refer to an age but say "currently". That means that you don't have to go around and change all of your contracts if that changes.

Laura:  Great. Would it be seen to discriminate if we do not offer death in service and income protection after 65, but we give it to those below 65?

Anne:  No, because that's generally not within your gift. It's usually whatever underwriter is insuring those benefits. So that is actually normal that they wouldn't apply over 65, and that's because of the providers.

Generally, in contracts where we have a benefit, and I'm sure it probably is in all your contracts, they say that, "Any of these benefits which are insured are subject to the terms of that policy", their own policy, because they're provided by third parties. So no, that's fine.

Laura:  And could it be seen as discriminatory to request a medical assessment in the instance of requesting to work longer? I think you've kind of answered that.

Anne:  No, it's not. You absolutely can request. Also, you could say it's in line with your health and safety obligations to ensure, and you also can blame your insurance company to get, say, a check. But it's very much where the safety-critical role is key.

Laura:  Yeah. And then someone has asked a follow-on. If a person is then deemed to be fit and healthy, does that mean they can work as long as they like?

Anne:  Yeah, that is a problem, you see. That's why actually if you just rely on health and safety and you don't have another objective justification, what can happen is then they're fit and it's like, "What are we going to do now?"

Laura:  So, you need to look at the . . .

Anne:  That's why it's actually better if you also have a justification of succession planning or intergenerational fairness. Because if you just rely on health and safety, people are just being fitter for longer. So, it's very hard now.

Laura:  Yeah. Great. Look, I'm conscious of time. We're nearly at 11:45, and we've got through a lot of questions there.

Apologies if we didn't get to read your question. Would just like to say thank you so much to Anne.

Before we wrap up today, we would just like to announce the launch of Legal-Island's autumn season. We've got lots of events and courses coming up. We've got AI for HR, we've got Preventing and Resolving Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace, our Mock WRC Adjudication Hearing, which is always a fun event. We have the Employment Equality Update, and of course, our Annual Review of Employment Law, and much, much more. So, to check out all of these events, look at our website, www.legal-island.ie/events.

Thanks so much to Anne for your expert guidance through the complexities of retirement age in the workplace. I think it can show how complex it is by the questions that we've gotten. Thank you so much for answering all of those.

Thank you all today for attending and for your questions, and thanks to Gosia in the background for all of her tech support.

We do have a very quick poll to see how you found the webinar this morning. We would be grateful if you could stay on and just fill out that poll very quickly.

We look forward to seeing you at our next webinar and do keep an eye out on our events section for all of our free webinars coming up.

Thanks again to Anne and take care.

Anne: Thanks.
 

Sponsored by: