On 22 January 2026, the Minister of State for Small Businesses, Retail and Employment at the Department of Enterprise, Tourism and Employment, Alan Dillon, signed into law an updated Code of Practice on Access to Part-Time Work, prepared by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC). The policy emphasis is on supporting flexible, inclusive work patterns and encouraging employers to review internal arrangements (including a stated encouragement to publish gender-balanced data on flexible-working take-up).
What the Code is (and is not)
The Code provides practical guidance and a “best practice” framework for handling movement between full-time and part-time working (and, importantly, requests to increase hours from part-time). It does not create a statutory right to part-time work: Irish law still does not provide a general entitlement to reduce hours to part-time, and the Code expressly recognises this.
The underlying legal position remains that any change to contracted hours is a matter for agreement, subject to wider statutory constraints (for example, equality and banded-hours rules where relevant).
The legal history – how part-time workers’ rights developed
Ireland’s core protections for part-time employees stem from EU Directive 97/81/EC (the Framework Agreement on part-time work), implemented domestically by the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act 2001. The Act’s central rule is equal treatment: a part-time employee must not be treated less favourably than a comparable full-time employee regarding conditions of employment, unless objectively justified. In parallel, the Act contains an express anti-penalisation protection where an employee invokes rights under the legislation or refuses to move between full-time and part-time at the employer’s request.
The access-to-part-time question has always been slightly different from the equal-treatment question. The 2001 Act protects part-time workers once they are part-time, but it did not introduce a general right to become part-time. That “access” gap was addressed by a statutory Code of Practice first put on a statutory footing in 2006 (S.I. No. 8/2006). The 2026 update refreshes that Code to reflect legislative and institutional changes since 2006.
What the updated Code says employers should do
The Code’s organising idea is that access to part-time work should be considered across the organisation (including skilled and managerial roles) and should be enabled where consistent with business requirements. The practical focus is on employers having:
- clear internal policies, developed in consultation as appropriate;
- objective role-suitability criteria;
- a structured request process with consultation, a timely decision, and an appeal route (as described in more detail below).
It also flags operational topics that commonly drive decisions (service delivery, staffing, administration, cost, continuity, regulatory constraints) and encourages employers to address indirect barriers such as training access, information flows to part-time staff, and career progression impacts.
The biggest “changes” compared with the 2006 Code
In substance, much of the best-practice architecture remains familiar (policy development, objective criteria, consultation, and transparency around reasons for refusal). What is most clearly different is the modern legal and institutional framing.
First, the updated Code is explicitly positioned within the post-2015 WRC framework: it references section 20 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 and reflects the WRC’s role, whereas the 2006 instrument is rooted in the Labour Relations Commission and section 42 of the Industrial Relations Act 1990.
Second, the updated Code expressly “updates to reflect legislative changes” and now signposts later statutes and codes that did not exist in 2006 – most notably the banded-hours regime under the Employment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2018, the EU Transparent and Predictable Working Conditions Regulations 2022, the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023, and the WRC’s 2024 Code of Practice for Employers and Employees Right to Request Flexible Working and Right to Request Remote Working. This matters operationally because many “hours” discussions now sit alongside (or overlap with) separate statutory request/notification frameworks, and the updated Code nudges employers to route matters correctly.
Third, the Government announcement accompanying the update emphasises transparency and labour-market participation objectives (including a stated encouragement to publish gender-balanced take-up data). That is a policy signal employers should expect to see reflected in employee expectations, IR discussions, and – over time – how reasonableness is assessed in disputes.
Process for dealing with requests
Under the recommended process for handling requests, the updated Code envisages a structured pathway rather than ad hoc discussions. Employers are encouraged to implement a procedure that covers four stages: (i) application, (ii) consultation and discussion, (iii) decision and response, and (iv) managing the outcome (either implementation or refusal).
- Application stage: The employee should submit a written request explaining the reasons for the change (for example, a move from full-time to part-time, a move from part-time to full-time, or an increase in hours) and should indicate whether the request is temporary or permanent. The Code also flags that where the request is made under the separate statutory “right to request” flexible or remote working framework, it should be dealt with under that Code instead.
- Consultation and discussion stage: The employer should treat the request seriously, allow a reasonable timeframe for consideration, and consult with the employee about feasibility. The Code indicates both parties should consider factors relevant to the employee and the business, including personal/family needs, the number of employees already working part-time, operational and staffing impacts, resources required to cover work, the urgency and duration of the request, and how the proposed revised hours align with the job’s tasks. It also references interaction points with other legal regimes (for example banded-hours considerations where the contract does not reflect hours worked over the reference period).
- Decision stage: The employer should issue the decision in a timely manner. If approved, the Code recommends agreeing and documenting how the arrangement will operate, typically through a signed written agreement setting out changes to terms such as pay, annual leave, sick leave and pension or other benefits (with pro-rata treatment where appropriate). If refused or deferred, the employer should clearly explain the grounds. The Code expressly contemplates refusal where part-time arrangements would adversely affect the business (for example service delivery impact, staffing difficulties, or other relevant operational factors).
- Appeal stage: Where agreement cannot be reached, the employee should have access to an appeal mechanism, typically through the organisation’s established grievance procedures. From a risk-management standpoint, this should be a genuine review step with a manager not previously involved, and a written outcome confirming the reasons.
Codes of Practice – not “binding”, but still risky to ignore
A Code of Practice does not generally create freestanding legal obligations in the way an Act does. However, non-compliance is not consequence-free. Under section 20(9) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, an approved Code is admissible in evidence in proceedings before a court, the Labour Court or a WRC adjudication officer. The Code itself reiterates that, and that relevant provisions “shall be taken into account” where they relate to a question in the proceedings.
Practically, that means a Code often becomes the benchmark for “reasonable” employer behaviour: fair process, timely engagement, objectively explained outcomes, and non-discriminatory criteria. If an employer departs from the Code, it increases the risk of adverse inferences – particularly where the underlying claim is anchored in binding law (for example, an equality claim, penalisation, or a contractual/unlawful deduction dispute) and the Code is used to test the credibility and reasonableness of the employer’s explanation.
What employers should do next – a compliance-focused action list
Employers should treat this as a policy and process upgrade exercise rather than a one-off announcement.
- Update policies and templates: Refresh part-time working policies (and any flexible-working suite) so they align with the updated Code’s request/decision/appeal structure and cross-refer the 2024 WRC Code on flexible/remote working where relevant.
- Build objective, role-based criteria: Document role-suitability criteria for part-time arrangements (service coverage, regulatory requirements, continuity, supervision needs), and ensure they are applied consistently.
- Standardise the request pathway: Implement a clear form of application, a defined consideration timeframe, a consultation meeting step, a written outcome with reasons (especially for refusals/deferrals), and an appeal route via grievance.
- Equality-proof decisions: Stress-test refusal reasons for indirect discrimination risk (particularly where requests relate to caring, disability, or other protected grounds) and ensure any less favourable treatment of part-time staff can be objectively justified where needed.
- Contract and benefits hygiene: Where a request is agreed, issue a written variation capturing hours, pay, annual leave, benefits/pension treatment on a pro-rata basis where applicable, and any review mechanism.
- Train managers: The Code places real weight on consistent management support and implementation; managers need to understand how to consult, document reasons, and avoid informal “off-the-record” refusals that undermine later defensibility.
- Consider transparency metrics: If the organisation is likely to publish flexible-working take-up data (as encouraged in the Minister’s announcement), decide now what will be tracked, how privacy will be protected, and how the narrative will be managed internally and externally.
Case Note
McGrath v Net Smart Security Ltd ADJ-00056559 [2025]: Discriminatory Refusal of Part-Time Work
In this case, the employee brought successful complaints under the Employment Equality Act 1998 for discrimination on the gender and family status grounds, arising from the employer’s treatment of her following pregnancy.
After a period of pregnancy-related absence, the employee sought to return to work on a part-time basis. The employer refused the request, stating that part-time working “never took place” within the business. However, evidence showed that part-time arrangements had been facilitated for relatives of the CEO, undermining the credibility of this position.
The WRC found that the Employer failed to meaningfully or objectively assess whether part-time working could be accommodated. This failure was particularly significant given that the employee’s role remained vacant and the employer was experiencing staffing difficulties. The employer was unable to justify why a part-time arrangement could not have been implemented.
The Adjudication Officer held that the employee had established a presumption of discrimination under the Employment Equality Act 1998. As the employer failed to provide credible, evidence-based reasons for refusing the request, it did not discharge the burden of proof.
In awarding redress, the WRC emphasised the requirement for compensation to be effective and dissuasive, awarding €50,000, being the maximum compensation available under the Employment Equality Act, equivalent to two years’ remuneration.
The decision underlines that refusals of part-time or flexible working requests linked following maternity must be supported by objective operational justification, consistent treatment and documented engagement, failing which employers may face significant liability for unlawful discrimination.
