Reinstatement and Re-engagement: Supreme Court, Labour Court and WRC Insights

Remedies following an unfair dismissal finding continue to be an area of real concern for employers, particularly where tribunals consider reinstatement or re-engagement under the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 (the ‘1977 Act’). While compensation is the primary remedy awarded in practice, case law confirms that reinstatement and re-engagement remain live risks for employers in appropriate circumstances.

When reinstatement is awarded, the individual is restored to the same role which they held before their dismissal and is entitled to recover pay for the period between dismissal and reinstatement. When re-engagement is awarded, the individual returns either to the position they held immediately before dismissal, or to a suitable alternative position within the organisation.

The Supreme Court’s decision in An Bord Banistíochta, Gaelscoil Moshíológ v The Labour Court & Ors [2024] IESC 38¹ provides authoritative guidance on how the remedies are to be approached. The Court emphasised that reinstatement and re-engagement are exceptional remedies under the legislation and are not to be treated as routine alternatives to an award of compensation. While the inadequacy of compensation under the 1977 Act may be a factor in awarding either remedy, the Court confirmed “it is only one such factor, and one of limited significance, and if there are reasons making re-engagement or reinstatement an inappropriate remedy, then they must be taken into account.” Recent Workplace Relations Commission (‘WRC’) decisions indicate that, although such remedies remain exceptional, they have not fallen out of favour where the Adjudicating Officer (‘AO’) determines that the circumstances justify their award.

Supreme Court Clarification

The Supreme Court in An Bord Banistíochta emphasised that, while compensation is the remedy most commonly awarded under the Act 1977, reinstatement and re-engagement remain available as exceptional remedies which should only be awarded where appropriate and practicable. The Court noted that reinstatement in particular, is generally “only applicable in a case where the WRC or Labour Court considers that the employee’s dismissal has been totally unfair and unjust.”² The Court stressed that the remedies should not be viewed or used as punitive measures for employer wrongdoing.

A central criticism of the WRC and Labour Court decisions in this case was the absence of a structured analysis to justify the use of such an exceptional remedy. The Court emphasised that the decision to award either reinstatement or re-engagement must assess both parties’ interests and wishes, with practicability as a decisive consideration.

Factors to consider include:

• The passage of time since dismissal
• Changes within the business
• Whether the role has been filled
• The impact on third parties
• Whether a workable employment relationship can realistically be restored

Rather than removing reinstatement or re-engagement from the range of available outcomes, the judgment meaningfully raises the bar in terms of the analysis and reasoning required before such remedies can be awarded.

How the WRC and Labour Court are Applying the Guidance

Recent WRC decisions suggest that decision-makers are engaging closely with the Supreme Court’s analysis, but remain prepared to order reinstatement or re-engagement where they determine that compensation alone would not provide effective redress. In particular, the WRC has ordered reinstatement or re-engagement where dismissals were found to be procedurally flawed and where the employment relationship was not beyond repair.

The WRC will take into account the parties wishes, however, AOs have consistently indicated that a Respondent’s opposition to the remedies will not be sufficient to resist an order of reinstatement or re-engagement. In a decision issued in July 2025, the WRC, in refusing to award reinstatement, noted that the Complainant’s significant contribution to his own dismissal was a factor taken into account in determining that reinstatement was not an appropriate outcome. The WRC instead awarded re-engagement, taking into consideration the Complainant’s age and length of his service with the Respondent³. The fact that the Respondent was a large employer and had the capacity to re-engage the Complainant in a different part of the organisation was a significant factor in the AO’s decision to direct re-engagement.

Although the Respondent’s desire not to reinstate or re-engage will not be determinative, it will be taken into account as part of the assessment of whether either remedy is realistic and workable in practice. Notwithstanding the Complainant’s insistence that her working relationship with the employer could continue despite the challenges leading to a WRC complaint, the WRC refused to award either reinstatement or re-engagement in a 2024 case, a decision was upheld on appeal to the Labour Court⁴. The AO held:

“While the complainant said that she would be able, in a return to the respondent’s workplace, to move on from the fact of her unfair dismissal, issues raised by the complainant concerning the respondent, its Board members and employees, including appeals and a formal complaint, are relevant in a reinstatement context. I cannot envisage harmonious working relations between either the parties, or between the complainant and the relevant employees in the respondent organisation, in the foreseeable future.”

The WRC stated that “the respondent’s total opposition to this and the attitude of the parties towards each other bolster my view that reinstatement is neither in the interests of the complainant or appropriate.”

In a pre-An Bord Banistíochta decision, the Labour Court overturned the WRC’s award of reinstatement and held that reinstatement is generally only granted where the employee is found not to have contributed to their dismissal⁵. Further, the Court noted that from the Respondent’s perspective there were significant trust and confidence issues that would render the Complainant’s return to the workplace untenable and found therefore that neither reinstatement nor re-engagement were appropriate remedies.

In a February 2026 decision⁶, the AO expressly considered An Bord Banistíochta and focused on whether re-engagement was realistically achievable in practice. The AO noted that employer opposition to re-engagement, or the fact that proceedings had been contentious, is not decisive. The key question is whether the employer can reasonably comply with the order and whether the proposed arrangement can function successfully going forward.

This reflects a more structured and disciplined application of the Supreme Court’s guidance, rather than a retreat from restorative remedies.

Conversely, both the WRC and the Labour Court continue to refuse reinstatement or re-engagement where trust and confidence have been irreparably damaged, roles no longer exist, or compliance would cause serious workplace disruption. In such cases, an award of compensation remains the preferred remedy.

Key Takeaways for Employers

Reinstatement and re-engagement remain uncommon, but they remain a risk where dismissals are procedurally weak and the role remains viable. Employers seeking to resist such remedies should be prepared to give clear, evidence‑based reasons why reinstatement or re-engagement would not be practicable.

Equally, the Supreme Court’s guidance provides helpful support for employers in demonstrating that, in many cases, compensation will be the most appropriate and proportionate outcome. Careful consideration of remedy‑stage arguments is therefore more important than ever.