Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A University Employee

A University

Representatives

SIPTU

 IBEC

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00004680

09/07/2025

The complainant is a Canadian national who is now resident in Ireland.  In May 2024 she applied for the renewal of her Irish Residence Permit Card (IRP).

This is a mandatory document for non-EEA/Swiss nationals staying in Ireland for over 90 days, certifying their legal registration, residency, and permitted activities, work or study, card). Her application was refused 'as [she] had not submitted all the required documents to renew her permission'.

In June 2024 she submitted a second application which was refused in July 'as [she] had not submitted all the required documents to renew her permission'.

Throughout this time she was keeping the respondent informed of the situation and constantly referred to the eight week grace period.

On August 1st, her IRP card expired, and she continued to work under the provisions of Immigration Services notice to Employers of the grace period while an application Is in process.

On August 16th she received her third refusal 'as [she] need further permission granted from the EU Treaty Rights Division' and shethen engaged an immigration solicitor and emailed her manager to say she was applying again.

On August 19th,  her employment with the respondent was suspended following the refusal of her third application.  On September 23rd she forwarded an email from Immigration Service Delivery notifying the respondent that the registration of the letter of permission has been approved, and the IRP card was s expected in the post.

The respondent replied on September 24th,  with a continued refusal to reinstate her employment until the physical IRP card had been received. It arrived on October 1st.

The legal opinion in November 2024 was to the effect that 'In counsel's opinion, [the respondent] adopted an unlawful position, and the complainant had grounds to seek recompense.

The government circular dated November 2022 states that:

If an employee's IRP card has expired and they are unable to obtain a valid registration card by the expiry date of their current IRP card, they are still legally permitted to remain In the State on the existing conditions of their current /RP card lor a maximum of 8 weeks.

This 8-week provision Is subject to the employee providing proof that they have applied to renew their registration, including when changing stamp category, prior to their current /RP card expiring."

              And that an approved an application completed e-mail is sent to the applicant.

This email confirmation can be used as proof of registration while the applicant awaits the delivery of their new /RP card.

However, it does NOT state that they have to have received their confirmation email prior to the IRP card expiring, just proof that they have applied to renew. Nor does it specify if a refusal is received after the expiration that a further application being made will void the eight weeks’ leeway. The complainant emailed her manager to prove that that she was reapplying with legal support. The 8 weeks would run from August 1st,  to  September26th.

The respondent replied ‘that continued employment within the above post is dependent upon your remaining legally eligible to do so, ongoing registration with the Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service is required until such time as you are granted permission to remain a 'resident' within the State.

Having appliedprior to the expiration date gives her the eight weeks provision in the government circular, confirming her legal position with the State, on her current terms, which Includes employment with the respondent.

This also proves that she should never have had her employment suspended as she was legally eligible to live and work in Ireland.

The respondent denies any wrongdoing, and it has acted in accordance with Irish Immigration legislation at all times.

The complainant’s contract of employment states: “continued employment within the above post is dependent upon your remaining legally eligible to do so. Ongoing registration with the Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service (INIS) is required until such time as you are granted permission to remain as a ‘Resident’ within the State.

In either case a current (in date) ‘IRP Card’ (Stamp. 4) and/or a ‘Certificate of Registration’ (when endorsed on your passport by the Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service (INIS)), must be furnished to The respondent's HR upon receipt or renewal of this documentation. The above appointment will cease should you not remain legally eligible to live and work in Ireland”

A summary of the timeline of events is outlined in the following table:

The complainant provided her IRP card as documentary evidence of her permission work in the state. This card had a date of issue of October 9th  2019, and the category was Stamp 4 EUFAM. Residence Card of a Family Member of a Union Citizen Permission to work or engage in business. This IRP card was valid until  August 1st,  2024.

She submitted the first renewal application for her permission to work on 30 May 2024 and was notified that it was refused on  June 24th, 2024. She submitted another renewal application on  June 24th, 2024, and was notified that it was refused on 18 July 2024. The Worker informed The respondent that the reason for the refusal was as follows:

“Your application is being refused as you have not submitted all the required documents to renew your permission. Please contact EU Treaty Rights at eutreatyrights@justice.iefor an approval letter for further permission to Remain”.

Brexit came fully into effect on 31 December 2020, after the end of the transition period, meaning that that non- EEA family members or dependents of a UK national, residing in Ireland before the end of the transition period, continued to hold the same residence permission to live, work or study in Ireland. However, there was a requirement to replace the current IRP Care, free of charge for a new document stating that they benefit from the Withdrawal Agreement. The replacement programme applied from January 1st, 2021, until  June 30th, 2022.

Following the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, the residence rights of UK nationals and their family members are governed by the Withdrawal Agreement and associated domestic regulations. The  application of  August 19th, 2024, was made under the Withdrawal Agreement framework. The jurisprudence cited by the complainant concerns EU Treaty Rights under Directive 2004/38/EC and is not determinative of post-Brexit status where valid permission has lapsed.

According to the Department of Enterprise, Tourism and Employment, after  June 30th, 2022, the EUFam card would no longer be valid and would not be accepted as proof of permission.

Due to Brexit, the complainant was required to exchange her Stamp 4 EUFam permission for a new one before the deadline of  June 30th, 2022. Once she became aware of this she completed an “entirely new EUTR3 form” and according to her, this was delivered to the EU Treaty Rights Office on 19 August 2024.

Irish Residence Permit holders have a grace period to remain and work legally after their card expires, provided they submitted a renewal application before the expiry date.

Employers are required to seek a copy of the email confirmation received when renewing the application and this should contain an OREG number as evidence of application. The grace period is currently 12 weeks and was 8 weeks at the time of the application.

According to the Department of Justice, Home Affairs and Migration, if the IRP holder’s current permission expired prior to submitting an application for renewal, they are considered out of permission and therefore not legally permitted to remain or work in the State.

In September 2024, the complainant  received a letter from the Department of Justice (DoJ) which stated:

•     the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move freely and reside within the European Union ceased to apply to family members of United Kingdom nationals on 31 December 2020.

•     Application for permanent residence, under Regulation 12 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) (Citizen’s Rights) Regulations 2020 was received by the DoJ on 19 August 2024.

While the application was being reviewed, the complainant was required to obtain temporary permission to reside in the State by producing a number of documents to a local immigration office and on presentation of these, may be provided with a Stamp 4 endorsement on her passport, expiring on 18 May 2025.

She was placed on a period of unpaid leave from  August 1st,  2024, because she did not have the required permission to work.

She submitted an email on 23 September 2024 which confirmed:

“Re: Your application for Irish Residence Permit Card Renewal, Acknowledgement Number OREG2024140519647, Application Date 06/09/2024. We have approved your application for renewal of your permission, and you will receive your new Irish Residence Permit (IRP) card within the next 10-15 working days.”

The approval email did not specify the effective commencement date of permission or confirm whether permission operated retrospectively not did it confirm the precise immigration stamp conditions.

Employers must verify documentary permission (IRP card or endorsed passport) before reinstating employment.

The respondent therefore acted prudently and lawfully in awaiting formal documentary confirmation before reinstating the complainant. This was necessary because the initial approval email was deficient, failing to specify several critical details, including the effective commencement date of the permission, whether the permission operated retrospectively and the precise immigration stamp conditions.

Given that employers are required to verify documentary permission (either the IRP card or an endorsed passport) before reinstating employment, The respondent acted correctly in delaying reinstatement until formal confirmation was received.

The complainant’s legal representative issued a letter to The respondent on 08 October 2024 advising that she had been issued with a copy of her IRP card, stamp 4, temporary until  May 18th, 2025. Her representative advised that the worker would not be available to return to work until 14 October 2024 on which date she did return..

The complainant is responsible for ensuring that she held a valid work permit. She initially held a Stamp 4 EUFAM card, which was valid until 01/08/2024. The contract of employment clearly stipulated that "continued employment within the above post is dependent upon your remaining legally eligible to do so.

The IRP card expired on 01 August 2024, and the renewal application was rejected twice. The Worker was informed that her renewal applications were refused on 24 June 2024 and 18 July 2024, before the card expired. The refusals cited a lack of required documents. Crucially, the final, successful application was received by the Department of Justice on 19 August 2024, which was 19 days after the IRP card expired on 1 August 2024.

Under Irish immigration legislation, both the employee and the employer have statutory obligations to ensure valid permission to work exists and that permitting employment without valid permission may expose the employer to statutory liability. The respondent is therefore required to verify valid and current documentary evidence before allowing work to continue

The Department of Justice (DoJ) confirmed in its correspondence that the application was received by their office on 19 August 2024, 19 days after the expiration of the IRP card. The advice from the DoJ is very clear, the grace period only applies when renewal is submitted in advance of the expiration of the IRP card. The grace period was introduced to deal with the backlog of applications and to allow applicants to remain in the state while their renewal is being processed.

The complainant  did try to renew the IRP card in advance of its expiration but did not have a valid IRP card and was awaiting temporary permission to work while the full application was being reviewed. The grace period does not apply as the application was received by DoJ on the 19 August, after the expiration of the IRP card.

The respondent acted appropriately and proportionally in the circumstances by placing the complainant  on temporary leave and she was reinstated once the IRP card was provided.

The suspension was temporary, was solely for immigration compliance purposes and she was reinstated immediately upon verification.

The action was compliance-driven, not punitive.

The respondent could not lawfully permit work or process remuneration for a period during which valid permission to work had not been confirmed. At no point did the Department of Justice confirm that permission was granted with retrospective effect to 1 August 2024 or 23 September 2024. In the absence of such confirmation, The respondent could not assume lawful permission existed. Reinstatement occurred promptly once documentary confirmation was received.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

The facts are well set out above and concern a delay in the complainant having her residency status confirmed.

The respondent is a large public sector employer,  and its position is simply that it cannot permit a person to work without a valid work permit.

In this case the complainant’s previous permit expired on August 1st, 2024. She was placed on unpaid leave.

I do not see how the respondent had any alternative in that regard on the basis of the legal position set out at some length in its submission above. In addressing it subsequently, whatever flexibility a small, private sector employer might have to enter into compensatory arrangements, this respondent must not only abide by the law but also must be conscious of settlement arrangements that might effectively be seen to bypass it.

In the course of the hearing, it emerged that on the basis of a review of the correspondence received on September 24th,  it would have been open to it to reinstate the complainant on the payroll at an earlier date, that is with effect from September 24th and up to her actual  return to work date on October 14th, 2024, a period of some three weeks.

I recommend that it give effect to this option and pay the complainant from that earlier date.

Immigration visa.