What 1,000 WRC Mediations Tell Employers About Resolving Workplace Disputes
Not every Workplace Relations Commission complaint needs to end with witnesses giving evidence at a public adjudication hearing.
A major review published by the WRC provides employers with a rare insight into what actually happens when parties attempt to resolve employment disputes through mediation.
The WRC analysed 1,000 pre-adjudication mediations conducted during 2025, examining settlement rates, complaint types, representation, duration, financial settlements and why some cases failed to resolve.
The results provide useful practical lessons for any employer already dealing with a WRC complaint — or deciding whether mediation should form part of its dispute-resolution strategy.
The strongest lesson may be a simple one: mediation works best when both parties arrive prepared to make decisions, rather than simply attending to see what happens.
What happens at WRC mediation?
Pre-adjudication mediation is available where an employment or equality complaint has been referred to the WRC and both parties agree to participate.
Instead of proceeding immediately towards a formal adjudication hearing, a WRC Mediation Officer assists the parties in exploring whether the dispute can be resolved.
Importantly, WRC mediation is:
- Confidential;
- Conducted without an admission of liability;
- Provided by the WRC without charge to the parties;
- Capable of producing a legally binding agreement; and
- More flexible in terms of potential outcomes than adjudication.
This creates an important strategic distinction for employers: mediation is an opportunity to control an outcome, whereas adjudication places the outcome in the hands of the Adjudication Officer.
The numbers at a glance
WRC mediation cases analysed
Settlement rate for telephone mediations
Settlement rate for unfair dismissal disputes
Overall median financial settlement reported
The figures show that mediation is not confined to straightforward wage or contractual disputes.
Complex matters including unfair dismissal, employment equality, penalisation and protected disclosures are also regularly referred to mediation.
Unfair dismissal was the most common issue at mediation
Almost three in ten complaint areas considered in the review concerned unfair dismissal.
| Complaint Area | Share of Complaints | Settlement Rate |
|---|---|---|
| Unfair Dismissal | 29.9% | 56% |
| Employment Equality | 18.4% | 44% |
| Pay | 15.7% | 49% |
| Terms & Conditions | 8% | 58% |
| Hours of Work | 5.2% | 66% |
| Minimum Notice | 4.3% | 67% |
| Penalisation | 4.2% | 37% |
| Protected Disclosures | 2.9% | 30% |
Even unfair dismissal — one of the more serious and potentially contentious employment disputes — achieved a 56% settlement rate.
Not every type of dispute settles equally easily
The data also demonstrates why employers should assess each WRC case individually rather than applying a blanket settlement strategy.
Minimum notice disputes recorded a 67% settlement rate and hours-of-work disputes 66%.
By contrast, only 37% of penalisation cases and 30% of protected disclosure disputes resolved at mediation.
Those cases can involve complex factual disputes, serious allegations, reputational concerns and issues that one or both parties may wish to have formally determined.
The question is not simply “Should we settle?” It is “What are the legal, financial and commercial risks of this particular case?”
Why do mediations fail to resolve?
Perhaps the most useful finding for employers concerns the cases which did not settle.
WRC mediators were asked for their assessment of why disputes remained unresolved.
In 70.6% of non-resolutions, mediators considered the parties to be too far apart on the financial amount each considered acceptable.
Other reasons included cases being considered unsuitable for mediation, respondents attending without authority to settle, and parties attending for information-gathering rather than genuine negotiation.
This gives employers an important practical lesson.
Do the case valuation before the mediation — not for the first time while sitting in the mediation.
Make sure the employer has authority to negotiate
The WRC identified respondents attending without a settlement mandate as one reason cases failed to resolve.
An employer representative attending mediation should therefore know:
- The strengths and weaknesses of the defence;
- The potential value of the claim;
- The likely cost of continuing to adjudication;
- The employer's realistic settlement range;
- What non-financial terms may be acceptable; and
- Who has authority to approve a final agreement.
Attending mediation without the ability to make a meaningful decision can waste the best opportunity to resolve the dispute.
What did WRC mediated settlements look like financially?
The WRC's analysis also provides unusual insight into the amounts actually agreed in mediation.
The overall median financial settlement in the cases examined was:
€6,000
However, there were substantial differences depending on the type of mediation.
| Mediation Format | Median Settlement |
|---|---|
| In-person | €7,500 |
| Virtual | €10,000 |
| Telephone | €1,090.72 |
These figures should not be treated as a tariff or prediction of the value of any individual employment claim.
More complex disputes are more likely to be dealt with in person or virtually, while relatively straightforward matters such as pay, working hours and contractual terms are more commonly mediated by telephone.
Settlement does not always have to mean writing a cheque
Financial compensation formed part of the overwhelming majority of resolved cases examined by the WRC.
But a small number of disputes resolved without any financial payment.
Mediation allows parties to consider solutions which may not be available through a conventional adjudication award.
Depending on the dispute, employers may be able to explore terms relating to:
- Agreed references;
- Clarification of employment records;
- Practical workplace arrangements;
- Communication between the parties;
- Confidentiality, where legally permissible;
- Future employment arrangements; or
- Other mutually agreed outcomes.
A resolution package can sometimes solve a problem that a financial award alone cannot.
Most employers were represented — but representation alone did not determine the outcome
Respondents were considerably more likely to attend mediation with representation than complainants.
The review found:
- 65.7% of respondents were represented;
- 42.5% of complainants were represented; and
- Legal representation was the most common form of representation for represented parties.
Interestingly, the WRC found that representation itself was not a major predictor of whether a settlement would ultimately be reached.
Represented respondents recorded a 52.8% settlement rate, compared with 50.7% among unrepresented respondents.
Representation can help an employer understand risk and negotiate effectively, but the parties themselves still need to be willing and authorised to resolve the dispute.
Complex disputes can sometimes be resolved surprisingly quickly
The WRC found that 86% of the mediations analysed concluded within a half-day window.
This included many complex cases.
Among settled unfair dismissal mediations, 74.2% concluded within a half-day session.
For settled employment equality mediations, 62.8% concluded within a half-day.
A dispute capable of consuming months of management time and ultimately requiring a public hearing can sometimes be resolved within a single mediation session.
Confidentiality can have real commercial value
Another important difference between mediation and adjudication is confidentiality.
WRC mediation is confidential.
By contrast, adjudication hearings are generally held in public and published decisions identify the parties and set out details of the dispute.
That does not mean an employer should settle a weak case purely to avoid publicity.
But confidentiality is a legitimate factor to include when assessing the wider commercial consequences of a dispute.
Legal risk is only one part of dispute strategy. Management time, cost, employee relations and reputational impact can matter too.
How should an employer prepare for WRC mediation?
Before attending, employers should consider:
- What exactly is being alleged?
- What evidence supports the employer's position?
- Where are the weaknesses in the defence?
- What is the realistic financial exposure?
- What will continued litigation cost in management time and representation?
- What is the employer's settlement range?
- Who has authority to approve a settlement?
- Could non-financial terms help resolve the dispute?
- Are there confidentiality or reputational considerations?
- What happens if mediation does not resolve the case?
Mediation does not mean the employer should settle at any cost
The purpose of mediation is to explore whether an agreed resolution is possible.
There will be cases where an employer has a strong defence, where the amount sought is disproportionate or where an important factual or legal issue requires adjudication.
Walking away from mediation without an agreement is not necessarily a failure.
The objective should be an informed decision — whether that decision is to settle or proceed to hearing.
The wider lesson for employers
The WRC's analysis demonstrates that mediation is now an important part of Ireland's employment dispute-resolution system.
Even complex unfair dismissal disputes can resolve at significant rates, and many mediations conclude within a matter of hours.
But the figures on unsuccessful mediation are equally instructive.
Where parties arrive with unrealistic financial expectations, no settlement authority or no genuine intention to negotiate, the opportunity for early resolution can quickly disappear.
If an employer is going to WRC mediation, go prepared to make a decision — not simply to see what happens.
Employers facing WRC proceedings should assess the evidence, potential exposure, commercial implications and available resolution options before mediation begins so that any decision to settle or proceed to adjudication is properly informed.
Source: Workplace Relations Commission, “Insights from Mediation at the WRC: A Review of 1,000 Mediation Cases”, July 2026.
This article is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Specific legal advice should be obtained in relation to individual circumstances.
