A parliamentary adviser who did not get enhanced redundancy after taking up a political job in Europe with an Irish politician should only get the extra money if and when the MEP loses the seat, the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) has said.
In an anonymised recommendation on an industrial dispute raised by the unidentified adviser published on Friday, a WRC adjudicator said the right thing was for the payment to be “frozen” and only paid out if the MEP lost their seat in Europe.
The recommendation was on foot of a case raised by the political adviser in March 2025 against a Government department seeking voluntary adjudication under the Industrial Relations Act 1969, and is non-binding.
The tribunal heard the worker’s job as a political adviser in Leinster House was made redundant in 2024 when the politician was elected to what was described in the decision as “another parliament outside the Republic of Ireland” – understood to be the European Parliament.
READ MORE
They received a statutory redundancy payment – but not an additional ex gratia sum “customarily” paid to special advisers left out of work in circumstances where their TD or Senator loses their seat in an election, the tribunal was told.
The adviser went with the politician to the new parliamentary office, the tribunal heard.
Peter Glynn of Siptu, appearing for the special adviser, argued the worker “should not be treated less favourably solely because the member of parliament they advised was elected to alternative public office”.
The union rep maintained the enhanced redundancy “should have been paid” when the worker finished up at the Oireachtas.
The State countered these enhanced redundancy payments were “discretionary and ex gratia in nature” and were meant to “compensate for actual financial loss” and “employment disruption” due to “the vagaries of political life”.
Since the adviser was still at work and had no loss of earnings, it was neither “justified nor appropriate” to pay redundancy.
In his decision, adjudicator Breiffni O’Neill wrote that enhanced redundancy payments were meant to be “compensatory” and that paying one when the worker left the Oireachtas would not have achieved this purpose.
However, his view was that “permanently distinguishing the entitlement” simply because the adviser was immediately re-employed would be “disproportionate and could produce inequitable outcomes” if the adviser was to be left out of work.
He said the payment should be “frozen” and only become payable if the politician lost their seat in the new parliament.
If the adviser was to take up work for another Irish politician, the payment would have to be waived.
If the politician was re-elected to the Oireachtas, O’Neill recommended the accrued enhanced redundancy payment should be “unfrozen” and added to “any future enhanced redundancy payment”.
“This proposed approach ensures that the enhanced redundancy serves its intended purpose of compensating for genuine loss, while avoiding windfall payments or duplication of public funds during periods in which the worker continues in employment,” O’Neill concluded.
