Workplace Relations Commission finds Employer of Record to be an agency arrangement in recent decision

A recent Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) decision has found that an employee was an agency worker and that the Employer of Record (“EOR”) was an employment agency for purposes of the Protection of Employees (Temporary Agency Work) Act 2012. 

In the case of Rebecca Manning v 6Cats Management Services Limited,¹ the Complainant was employed by 6Cats Management Services Limited ("6Cats"), operating as an EOR for its customer, the end user, Cinesite VFX Limited ("Cinesite"), and assigned work to the Complainant.

The Complainant argued, amongst other things, that her employment had been terminated by reason of redundancy. She brought claims under the Redundancy Payments Act 1967, the Payment of Wages Act 1991, the European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003 (S.I. No. 131 of 2003) ("TUPE Regulations"), and the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973.

In a decision published in June 2026, the WRC did not uphold any of the Complainant's claims because her fixed term contract expired as agreed, but the decision is noteworthy for EOR providers and businesses using EOR services in Ireland as the Adjudication Officer considered in some detail the legal characterisation of the EOR arrangement. 

An EOR is a third-party organisation that assists businesses with employment law compliance in jurisdictions where they do not have a legal presence. Under Irish law, the EOR is the legal employer of the employee, who is then assigned to provide services to the end client. 

The Facts

In this case, Cinesite was based in the UK and the Complainant resided and worked in Ireland. The Complainant was originally employed directly by Cinesite on a fixed-term contract and subsequently entered into a series of fixed-term contracts with 6Cats, acting as EOR for Cinesite. The Complainant contended that on being made redundant she had not received the requisite statutory notice, and that her statutory employment rights had been breached. 6Cats disputed her claim, maintaining that it was the legal employer and that the Complainant's employment ended on the agreed contractual expiry date.

The Adjudication Officer ("AO") first considered whether the Complainant was in fact an agency worker and if so, whether the Respondent, 6Cats, was an employment agency for the purposes of the Protection of Employees (Temporary Agency Work) Act 2012 ("2012 Act"). The 2012 Act defines an agency worker as an individual employed by an employment agency under a contract of employment under which the individual may be assigned to work for, and under the direction and supervision of, a person other than the employment agency. The AO found that this was the case. The AO noted that the concept of an EOR arrangement is not defined in Irish legislation and observed that the day-to-day supervision and direction exercised by Cinesite was consistent with the statutory model of agency work. Importantly, the finding that 6Cats was an employment agency did not mean that it ceased to be the Complainant’s legal employer. Rather the decision recognised the distinction between the identity of the contractual employer and the statutory classification of the employment relationship for purposes of the 2012 Act.

Having found that 6Cats was the legal employer, the AO then considered the substantive complaints. The claims relating to minimum notice, unlawful deductions from wages and TUPE were unsuccessful because the Complainant's employment terminated upon the expiry of her fixed-term contract. No statutory notice was required in those circumstances, and the AO was satisfied that no economic entity had transferred for the purposes of TUPE regulations. The AO 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 of the case. These claims were heard in conjunction with similar complaints brought against Cinesite in ADJ-00056343.

Commentary

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. If an EOR is characterised as an employment agency, it will be required to comply with a number of statutory obligations, including the requirement to obtain an employment agency licence and maintain a premises in Ireland, which many EOR’s operating in Ireland may not have. 

Another significant consequence of an Employer of Record arrangement being deemed an agency arrangement is that the customer/end user is treated as the employer for the purpose of any claims by an employee under the Unfair Dismissals Acts. While it did not arise for consideration in this case, as no unfair dismissal claim was pursued, the customer could find themselves on the wrong side of an unfair dismissal award notwithstanding their belief that all employment law responsibility lies with the employer of record.

Most significantly, section 10(1) of the Employment Agency Act 1971, as amended by section 19 of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003, makes it an offence for an employment agency to operate without a valid employment agency licence. On summary conviction, such an offence may attract a Class C fine of up to €2,500 and, in the case of a continuing offence, a further Class D fine of up to €1,000 per day.

For more information and advice on these updates, please contact Aoife Bradley, Partner and Marcus Dunne, Associate on our Employment Law team or your usual BWS contact.

¹ ADJ-00056342