In Rebecca Manning v 6Cats Management Services Limited (ADJ-00056342), the Workplace Relations Commission (the “WRC”) rejected complaints under the Redundancy Payments Act 1967, the Payment of Wages Act 1991, the European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003, and the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973. In this decision, the Adjudicator, Úna Glazier-Farmer, considered the status of an Employer of Record arrangement and confirmed that the expiry of a fixed-term contract linked to a specific assignment did not give rise to redundancy or notice entitlements in the circumstances. However, significantly the Adjudicator deemed the arrangement to be an agency arrangement.
Facts: The Complainant worked as a VFX Supervisor and entered into contracts of employment with the Respondent, which operated as an Employer of Record. She contended that her true employer was a different company, Cinesite VFX Limited (“Cinesite”) for whom she carried out her day-to-day work, and that the Respondent had been introduced for payroll and tax purposes only. She argued that she had been made redundant, that she did not receive her contractual minimum notice, and that her statutory rights had been breached.
The Respondent’s position was that it was the Complainant’s legal employer under a series of fixed-term contracts and that her employment ended when the final fixed-term contract expired on its agreed end date. The Respondent submitted that the Complainant was engaged within an Employer of Record structure whereby it acted as the legal employer while the Complainant was assigned to provide services to another organisation. The Respondent argued that the Complainant’s contract of employment expired and therefore, she did not qualify for redundancy, minimum notice nor was there any outstanding wages.
Decision: The Adjudicator first considered the status of the relationship between the parties. The WRC noted that the Respondent described itself as an Employer of Record and had entered into contractual arrangements under which the Complainant was employed by the Respondent and assigned to work for another undertaking. Significantly, the Adjudicator found that these arrangements fell within the statutory definition of agency work and held that the Respondent was the Complainant’s employer for the purposes of the complaints before it.
In reaching that conclusion, the Adjudicator accepted that Cinesite exercised day-to-day supervision and operational control over the Complainant’s work. However, it found that such supervision was consistent with the statutory model of agency work and did not alter the identity of the true employer. The WRC placed particular emphasis on the contractual relationship and the fact that the Respondent was responsible for the payment of wages.
Having found that the Respondent was the true employer, the Adjudicator considered the Complainant’s redundancy complaint. The Adjudicator accepted that the Complainant had been dismissed within the meaning of the Redundancy Payments Acts because her fixed-term contract expired without renewal. However, the issue to be determined was whether the dismissal occurred by reason of redundancy.
It was accepted that the Respondent operated a model whereby employees were engaged on fixed-term contracts for the purpose of assignment to a hirer. It was further accepted that each contract had a clearly defined end date and that continuation of employment was contingent on the renewal or extension of that contractual arrangement.
The Adjudicator found that there was no evidence that the Respondent’s requirement for employees to carry out work of a particular kind had ceased or diminished. Instead, the employment ended because a fixed-term assignment expired and was not renewed.
The Adjudicator also rejected the claim for notice pay under the Payment of Wages Act. It found that no entitlement to notice pay arose because the fixed-term contract expired by effluxion of time. The Adjudicator noted that the Respondent had made an additional six-week ex gratia payment but found that such a payment did not constitute wages properly payable for the purposes of the legislation.
The Complainant’s claim under Regulation 10 of the European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003 (“TUPE” Regulations) was dismissed because there was no evidence of any transfer of a business, undertaking or economic entity. The Adjudicator found that the arrangements involved a contractual and payroll structure rather than a transfer within the meaning of TUPE.
Finally, the Adjudicator rejected the minimum notice complaint. It found that where a fixed-term contract expires on its agreed end date, the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973 does not apply. The WRC held that any contractual notice provisions were only relevant in circumstances of early termination and were not engaged in this case.
Takeaway for Employers: The use of fixed term contracts by the Respondent is noteworthy as it appears to have significantly assisted it in defence of these particular claims. However, the most significant element of this decision is the determination that the Employer of Record arrangement was in fact an agency arrangement. While that determination did not have any particular consequences for the Employer of Record in this case given the statutory claims against it ultimately failed, the determination does have potentially wider consequences for Employer of Record Arrangements.
Firstly, the question of licencing arises. The Employment Agency Act 1971 makes it an offence for a person to operate an employment agency without a licence. A person convicted of doing so may be subjected to a fine not exceeding €2,000.00 and in the case of a continuing offence, to a further fine not exceeding €1,000.00 for each day on which the offence is continued. Where the employment agency operating without a licence is a body corporate and the offence is proved to have be committed with the consent or approval of, or to have been facilitated by any wilful neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary, or other officer of the body corporate, the director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of the offence.
Another significant consequence of an Employer of Record Arrangement being deemed an agency arrangement is that the end user is treated as the employer for the purpose of any claims by an employee under the Unfair Dismissals Acts.
In this case, the Complainant had also lodged claims against the end user Cinesite VFX LTD (ADJ-00056343) all of which failed on the basis that the agency and not Cinesite were the employer. However, no unfair dismissal claim was brought in this case, therefore the point about end user liability for unfair dismissal claims was not examined. Even if such a claim had been brought in this case, the argument that the employment ended by reason only of the expiry of the fixed term contract may have assisted Cinesite in defending such a claim.
However, in another case not involving the same use of fixed term contracts an end user could find themselves on the wrong side of an unfair dismissal award notwithstanding their belief all employment law responsibility lies with the employer of record.
Link to Decisions:
Authors- Jane Holian and Laura Killelea
August, 2026
If you found this article useful you might like our employment law newsletter. We write monthly articles, like this, covering interesting cases, decisions, news and developments in Ireland.