WRC Decision Raises Important Questions for Employers Using Employer of Record Services in Ireland

A Workplace Relations Commission ("WRC") decision published in June 2026 has highlighted the potential legal implications for businesses engaging workers through Employer of Record ("EOR") arrangements in Ireland.

In Rebecca Manning v 6Cats Management Services Limited, the WRC determined that an employee engaged through an EOR arrangement was an agency worker for the purposes of the Protection of Employees (Temporary Agency Work) Act 2012 ("the 2012 Act"). The Adjudication Officer also found that the EOR provider fell within the statutory definition of an employment agency.

Although the employee's claims under various employment legislation were unsuccessful, the decision raises important considerations for EOR providers and businesses using these arrangements, particularly regarding employment agency licensing requirements and the allocation of employment law responsibilities.

What is an Employer of Record?

An Employer of Record is a third-party organisation that formally employs individuals on behalf of another business.

These arrangements are commonly used by organisations seeking to engage employees in countries where they do not have an established legal entity.

Typically, the EOR assumes responsibility for contractual employment arrangements, payroll administration and certain employment law compliance obligations, while the client business retains responsibility for directing and supervising the employee's day-to-day work.

However, the distinction between the contractual employer and the business exercising control over the employee's work can create legal complexities, particularly where the arrangement falls within the scope of legislation governing temporary agency workers.

This distinction was central to the WRC's consideration in this case.

Background to the Case

The Complainant, Rebecca Manning, was based in Ireland and performed work for Cinesite VFX Limited ("Cinesite"), a UK-based company.

She had initially been employed directly by Cinesite under a fixed-term contract before subsequently entering into a series of fixed-term employment contracts with 6Cats Management Services Limited ("6Cats").

6Cats operated as an Employer of Record for Cinesite, meaning that it was the Complainant's contractual employer, while Cinesite continued to direct and supervise the work being undertaken.

When the employment relationship ended, the Complainant disputed the circumstances surrounding the termination.

She maintained that her employment had effectively ended by reason of redundancy and that she had not received the statutory entitlements arising from that termination.

The Complainant subsequently brought complaints under several pieces of employment legislation, including:

• The Redundancy Payments Act 1967;
• The Payment of Wages Act 1991;
• The Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973; and
• The European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003 (S.I. No. 131 of 2003), commonly referred to as the TUPE Regulations.

6Cats disputed the claims, maintaining that it was the Complainant's legal employer and that her employment had ended upon the agreed expiry of her fixed-term contract.

The WRC was therefore required to consider both the nature of the employment relationship and whether the circumstances surrounding the termination gave rise to any statutory entitlements.

Was the Employer of Record an Employment Agency?

One of the key issues examined by the Adjudication Officer was whether the arrangement between 6Cats, Cinesite and the Complainant constituted an agency employment relationship under Irish legislation.

The Protection of Employees (Temporary Agency Work) Act 2012 provides a statutory framework governing individuals employed by an employment agency and assigned to work under the direction and supervision of another organisation.

Under the legislation, an agency worker is broadly defined as an individual employed by an employment agency under a contract of employment who may be assigned to work for, and under the direction and supervision of, a third party.

The Adjudication Officer considered the practical operation of the arrangement rather than relying exclusively on how the parties had described their contractual relationship.

While 6Cats was identified as the contractual employer, the Complainant performed her duties for Cinesite, which exercised day-to-day direction and supervision over her work.

The Adjudication Officer also observed that Employer of Record arrangements are not specifically defined as a separate employment model under Irish legislation.

Having considered the relationship between the parties, the WRC concluded that the Complainant satisfied the statutory definition of an agency worker and that 6Cats fell within the definition of an employment agency for the purposes of the 2012 Act.

Importantly, this finding did not alter the fact that 6Cats remained the Complainant's contractual employer.

Instead, the decision recognised that an organisation may be the legal employer under an employment contract while also being classified as an employment agency under the relevant statutory framework.

This distinction has potentially significant implications for businesses operating through EOR arrangements in Ireland.

What Did the WRC Decide on the Employee's Claims?

Having considered the nature of the employment relationship, the Adjudication Officer proceeded to examine the individual complaints brought by the Complainant.

The central issue was whether the termination of employment arose from redundancy or whether the employment relationship had simply concluded in accordance with the terms of the fixed-term contract.

The WRC accepted that the Complainant's employment had ended upon the expiry of the agreed contractual term.

In the circumstances of this case, the Adjudication Officer was satisfied that the expiry of the fixed-term contract did not give rise to the redundancy or statutory notice entitlements being claimed.

The complaint under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 was also unsuccessful.

In relation to the TUPE complaint, the Adjudication Officer found that there had been no transfer of an economic entity within the meaning of the TUPE Regulations.

Accordingly, the Complainant's claims against 6Cats were not upheld.

The complaints were considered alongside related proceedings brought against Cinesite under reference ADJ-00056343.

Although the substantive complaints were unsuccessful, the WRC's assessment of the EOR relationship is particularly noteworthy because of the wider regulatory and employment law implications that may arise from such arrangements.

What Are the Implications for Employers Using EOR Services?

The decision highlights an important issue for businesses that engage workers in Ireland through third-party employment providers.

While EOR arrangements are frequently presented as a means of simplifying international employment and managing local compliance obligations, the contractual structure alone does not necessarily determine how the relationship will be treated under Irish employment legislation.

Where an EOR employs an individual who is subsequently assigned to work under the direction and supervision of another business, the arrangement may fall within the statutory framework governing employment agencies and agency workers.

This classification can have consequences for both the EOR provider and the organisation receiving the employee's services.

1. Employment Agency Licensing Requirements

One of the more significant implications concerns the regulatory obligations applicable to employment agencies operating in Ireland.

The Employment Agency Act 1971 establishes licensing requirements for businesses operating as employment agencies.

Where an EOR arrangement falls within the relevant statutory definition, the provider may be required to comply with employment agency licensing requirements, including applicable requirements concerning an established business premises in Ireland.

This is particularly relevant for international EOR providers that operate across multiple jurisdictions without maintaining a physical presence in every country where they engage employees.

Section 10(1) of the Employment Agency Act 1971, as amended by section 19 of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003, provides for offences relating to the operation of an employment agency without the required licence.

The legislation provides for penalties, including a Class C fine of up to €2,500 on summary conviction and, in the case of a continuing offence, a further Class D fine of up to €1,000 for each day the offence continues.

However, whether a particular EOR provider is subject to these requirements will depend on the nature of its activities and the application of the relevant legislation.

2. Potential Liability for Unfair Dismissal Claims

Another important consideration is the potential exposure of the end-user business to employment-related claims.

Under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977–2015, specific provisions apply to individuals employed through employment agencies and assigned to perform work for another organisation.

In qualifying agency arrangements, the organisation for which the employee performs the work may be treated as the employer for the purposes of the Unfair Dismissals Acts.

This means that a business engaging an individual through an EOR provider could potentially face liability in an unfair dismissal claim, even where the employment contract is formally held by the EOR.

The distinction is important because businesses may assume that engaging an EOR transfers all employment law responsibility to the third-party provider.

That assumption may not accurately reflect the position under Irish law.

It should be emphasised that no unfair dismissal complaint was determined in this case. The potential exposure of an end-user business therefore represents a wider legal implication of the classification rather than a finding of liability against Cinesite in these proceedings.

3. Contractual Arrangements Do Not Determine Statutory Employment Status

The decision also reinforces the importance of examining how an employment relationship operates in practice.

Simply describing an organisation as an Employer of Record does not necessarily prevent it from being regarded as an employment agency under Irish legislation.

Relevant considerations include the identity of the contractual employer, which organisation directs and supervises the employee's work, and the practical relationship between the employee, the EOR provider and the end-user business.

Where the arrangement satisfies the statutory requirements for agency work, the applicable employment legislation may extend beyond the responsibilities expressly allocated between the parties under their commercial agreement.

What Should Employers Consider?

For organisations using EOR services, the decision provides a useful opportunity to review existing arrangements and ensure that employment law responsibilities are clearly understood.

Businesses should consider whether their EOR arrangements could fall within the statutory definition of agency work, particularly where employees are engaged by a third-party provider but work exclusively under the direction and supervision of the end-user organisation.

It is also important to establish whether the EOR provider holds any employment agency licence required under Irish law and whether the contractual arrangements appropriately address employment-related liabilities.

Employers should pay particular attention to the allocation of responsibility for disciplinary matters, performance management, termination decisions and compliance with statutory employment rights.

While commercial agreements may allocate responsibilities and financial liabilities between an EOR provider and its customer, those arrangements cannot necessarily displace obligations imposed by employment legislation.

WorkWise HR Perspective

The significance of Rebecca Manning v 6Cats Management Services Limited lies less in the outcome of the individual complaints and more in the WRC's consideration of how Employer of Record arrangements may be classified under Irish employment law.

Although the Complainant was unsuccessful in her claims, the decision demonstrates that the legal responsibilities arising from an employment relationship cannot always be determined solely by the contractual structure adopted by the parties.

For businesses using EOR providers to engage employees in Ireland, it is important to understand that outsourcing the contractual employment relationship does not necessarily eliminate statutory employment law exposure.

The decision does not establish that every EOR arrangement will automatically constitute an employment agency relationship. However, it highlights the importance of examining the substance of the arrangement, particularly where an employee is engaged by one organisation but works under the direction and supervision of another.

Employers should therefore ensure that the arrangements they have in place are appropriately structured, that the relevant regulatory requirements have been considered and that responsibility for employment law compliance is clearly understood.

Ultimately, businesses should not assume that using an Employer of Record removes their obligations under Irish employment legislation. The practical operation of the relationship, rather than the contractual label alone, will be central to determining the applicable legal framework.

Case Reference: Rebecca Manning v 6Cats Management Services Limited. Related proceedings: ADJ-00056343.