Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Rebecca  Manning

Cinesite VFX LTD

Representatives

Self-Represented

Sarah Daly BL instructed by  Sweeney McGann Solicitors

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967

CA-00068595-001

30/12/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00068595-002

30/12/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

CA-00068595-003

30/12/2024

The Complainant gave evidence on Oath. It was her claim that she was made redundant from her employment as a VFX Supervisor with the Respondent, who at all times was her employer, did not receive her contractual minimum notice and did not receive all her rights during the period of notice. Documentation was submitted by the Complainant and shared with the Respondent.

Ms Sashka Jancovska, Chief HR Officer with the Respondent, gave evidence on Oath. Submissions were received and relied upon at the hearing.

Both parties availed of the opportunity to cross examine.

These claims were heard in conjunction with similar complaints against the 6Cats Management Services Limited (“6 Cats”) ADJ-00056342.

By letter dated 21 January 2026, further submissions were requested from the parties on three questions: -

a.      The question of whether the Complainant was an agency worker and 6Cats Management Services Limited an employment agency for the purposes of the Protection of Employees (Temporary Agency Work) Act 2012. 

b.      The Complainant raised the issue of control and who was the correct employer. It was her evidence that Cinesite VFX Limited was the employer and not 6Cats Management Services Limited.

c.      On the issue of jurisdiction, the parties are also invited to provide written legal submission on Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (“Rome 1”) as to where the jurisdiction rests (post Brexit) should Cinesite VFX Limited are found to be the employer.

The parties duly responded with detailed replies which have been set out below.

While some of the questions are more applicable to the other Respondent, for completeness, a summary of the response to each question has been detailed in this decision.

It was the Complainant’s evidence that she signed a contract of employment with the Respondent on 20 September 2021 and continued to sign a series of contracts until her employment was terminated on 11 October 2024.

The Complainant submitted that she had been treated very unfairly at the conclusion of her contract and that she felt misled in relation to the contractual arrangements governing her employment. She stated that 1 April 2022, she had been moved onto a less favourable contract with 6Cats under false pretences, resulting in the loss of benefits and entitlements which she had carefully negotiated in her original contract and which, she contended, should have continued.

The Complainant submitted that she was informed that the subsequent contracts with 6 Cats were “for payroll purposes only” and that, while she had pushed back to an extent, she ultimately signed the contracts under duress, believing that further resistance would damage her relationship with the company. She maintained that she did not freely agree to relinquish the contractual benefits previously negotiated and asserted that she would not have done so had she understood that the new contracts represented a substantive diminution of her terms and conditions.

The Complainant further submitted that she was working in a very demanding role at the time and that this contributed to her decision to sign the contracts as presented. She stated that she felt she had acted in good faith throughout her engagement and that she had a positive working relationship with her colleagues and management, including senior personnel.

In relation to the termination of her employment, the Complainant submitted that she was treated unfairly following the end of her contract, in that she was not provided with appropriate documentation or paperwork. She further submitted that she was mis‑registered, which prevented her from accessing social welfare supports, and that it took almost a year to resolve related issues with Revenue, which she described as particularly difficult to deal with.

Regarding her redundancy claim, the Complainant submitted that she believed she was entitled to redundancy having accumulated 157 weeks of continuous service, exceeding what she understood to be the minimum threshold. She stated that an email referring to her role ending due to a lack of work led her to believe that the termination amounted to a redundancy situation, and that this was the basis upon which she initiated discussions in that regard.

The Complainant further questioned the assertion that there was no work available. She submitted that, in her view, work did exist but was not allocated to her. She stated that she was the only employee on a remote, fixed‑term contract, while other employees were engaged on permanent contracts, including individuals hired after her. When she queried this, she submitted that she was told the company operated in this manner and that she was not entitled to permanency.

The Complainant submitted that a junior supervisor was promoted into her department after she was well‑established in her role and was subsequently assigned projects in the period approaching the end of her contract, while she herself was allocated none. She further submitted that the head of her department observed this situation and raised concerns with her, including in a meeting where the Complainant stated that she felt she was publicly sidelined.

In this context, the Complainant submitted that she felt she was being placed in a position where she became the obvious choice for termination, despite there being work available. She stated that she had joined the organisation in good faith and that she was deeply shocked by how her engagement ultimately ended.

Finally, the Complainant strongly rejected any suggestion that she had knowingly agreed to the removal of the benefits, bonuses, pay reviews, and other terms contained in her original contract. She submitted that she had carefully negotiated those terms and would not, under any circumstances, have voluntarily surrendered them in exchange for a lesser contract. She reiterated that she believed at all times that the revised contractual arrangements were for payroll purposes only.

Additional Submissions

The Complainant submitted the following in relation to the three questions set out in the letter of 21 January 2026

The question of whether the Complainant was an agency worker and 6Cats Management Services Limited an employment agency for the purposes of the Protection of Employees (Temporary Agency Work) Act 2012. 

It was the Complainant’s submission that she was not, and never understood herself to be, an agency worker, nor was she informed that she was being supplied as one. She submitted that she was recruited directly by the Respondent and worked continuously and exclusively for the Respondent, albeit across multiple projects, all of which formed part of the Respondent’s normal production pipeline. She was never assigned to another hirer, and all client interactions were arranged by the Respondent for its own clients.

The Complainant submitted that the introduction of 6Cats was represented to her as an Irish payroll and tax arrangement only, a position supported by an email from Frame25 referring to 6Cats as its Irish payroll partner. She stated that her role, duties, reporting lines, and working arrangements did not change, and that in practice 6Cats’ involvement was limited solely to payroll administration. She contended that 6Cats exercised no supervision, direction, or control over her work, did not manage her hours, leave, performance, or tasks, and that she had no interaction with 6Cats other than on payroll matters.

She further submitted that the Respondent retained full control over her role, duties, and termination throughout, and that the payroll arrangement was designed and implemented by the Respondent through Frame25. She contended that responsibility for ensuring the contractual arrangements reflected the reality of the relationship rested with the Respondent. The Complainant also raised concerns regarding the failure to provide termination documentation and errors by 6Cats in recording the cessation of her employment with Revenue following dismissal.

On the basis of how the relationship operated in practice, the Complainant submitted that she was not supplied by 6Cats to the Respondent, was not engaged on a temporary assignment, and that the arrangement did not reflect the type of agency relationship contemplated by the Protection of Employees (Temporary Agency Work) Act 2012, which she contended did not apply to her circumstances.

The Complainant raised the issue of control and who was the correct employer. It was her evidence that Cinesite VFX Limited was the employer and not 6Cats Management Services Limited.

It was the Complainant’s submission that the Respondent was her employer in substance and exercised employer control throughout her employment. She stated that the Respondent recruited her under a UK contract, determined her role and duties, directed and supervised her work, set her working hours, approved and recorded leave, dealt with HR matters, controlled contract renewals, and made and communicated the decision to terminate her employment.

She submitted that when an Irish payroll arrangement was introduced, it was expressly represented as being for tax purposes only and that no other terms of her employment would change. In practice, she contended that the Irish contractual terms were not applied, that her working conditions continued to follow the UK contract, and that the Irish contract was relied upon only at termination to deny responsibility for notice and termination documentation.

The Complainant further stated that she was fully integrated into the Respondent’s organisation, but was excluded from certain contractual benefits, performance reviews, and progression afforded to peers.

On the basis of the reality of the working relationship over the entirety of her tenure, she submitted that the Respondent was the employer in practice, and that the payroll entity’s role was administrative only.

On the issue of jurisdiction, the parties are also invited to provide written legal submission on Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (“Rome 1”) as to where the jurisdiction rests (post Brexit) should Cinesite VFX Limited are found to be the employer.

It was the Complainant’s submission that, if the Respondent were found to be her employer, jurisdiction properly rested in Ireland pursuant to Regulation (EC) No. 593/2008 (Rome I). She submitted that she resided in Ireland for the entirety of her employment, that her normal and habitual place of work was Ireland, and that all of her work was performed from Ireland save for occasional work-related travel at the Respondent’s request. She was paid through Irish payroll, paid tax in Ireland, and her employment was organised and carried out on a long-term basis from Ireland, with her day-to-day work integrated into the Respondent’s operations while she was based in Ireland.

The Complainant submitted that there were no factors indicating a closer connection with any other country. She further submitted that, even if another governing law were asserted, this would not displace the mandatory employment protections of the country in which the work was habitually carried out. In that regard, she contended that Irish employment protections applied. She also noted that both Respondents participated fully in the WRC process, which she submitted was consistent with an acceptance that the matter was properly before the WRC.

It was submitted on behalf of the Respondent that, while an employment relationship had existed between the Complainant and the Respondent, that relationship lawfully ceased on 30 March 2022, in accordance with the contracts of employment relied upon.

It was further submitted that from that date onwards the Complainant’s sole employer was 6Cats, pursuant to a series of fixed‑term contracts governing her subsequent engagement. It was submitted that the reason for this change in employer came about following tax advice due to the fact the Complainant was not resident in the United Kingdom.

The Respondent pre-existing contract with Frame 25 Recruitment Ltd for staffing services. However, it could not employ the Complainant directly as an Irish employee, engaged its Irish partner, 6 Cats who in turn employed the Complainant from 1 April 2022. 6Cats then supplied contractor management services to Frame 25, which were in turn provided to the Respondent under its existing services contract.

It was submitted that although the Respondent had ongoing engagement with the Complainant during the period of her work with 6Cats, this engagement was exclusively in the capacity of a client. Accordingly, the Respondent contended that it had no involvement or responsibility in employment‑related matters such as redundancy or notice entitlements during the relevant period.

In relation to the redundancy claim, it was submitted that the Respondent bore no responsibility or liability, as it was not the Complainant’s employer at the material time. Further and in any event, the Respondent supported the position advanced by the 6Cats that this matter did not constitute a redundancy situation, on the basis that the Complainant’s employment came to an end through the natural expiry of a fixed‑term contract on its agreed end date, which does not give rise to an entitlement to redundancy.

With regard to the claim for minimum notice or payment in lieu of notice, it was submitted that the only element potentially directed at the Respondent related to the assertion of an entitlement to two months’ notice. The Respondent relied upon the original contractual arrangements, including the contract between Ms Manning and the Respondent, which clearly provided that a two‑month notice entitlement arose only in circumstances of early termination.

It was further submitted that the email relied upon by the Complainant herself confirmed that the two‑month notice provision was intended to apply solely where a contract was terminated prior to its agreed end date. As there was no early termination in this case, the Respondent submitted that no contractual or statutory entitlement to notice arose and again supported the position of 6Cats that no legal obligation to provide notice exists where a fixed‑term contract expires naturally.

It was also submitted that the Complainant was informed in April that her contract was due to conclude in October, and that the contract did in fact end on that date. In this respect, it was submitted that the Complainant effectively received approximately six months’ advance notice of the contract end. Reliance was also placed on the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment legislation, which was said not to apply where a fixed‑term contract comes to an end on its agreed expiry date.

Without prejudice to the foregoing, it was further submitted that the Complainant did in fact receive notice, namely two weeks’ notice, together with an additional six weeks’ ex gratia payment by way of goodwill. In those circumstances, it was submitted that it was difficult to identify any basis upon which a valid notice claim could arise.

In summary, it was submitted on behalf of the Respondent that it was not the Complainant employer, that no redundancy situation arose, and that there was no entitlement to notice or payment in lieu of notice arising from the natural expiry of a fixed‑term contract. It was further submitted that, even if an entitlement had arisen, the Complainant had in fact received notice payments exceeding any statutory minimum. On that basis, the Respondent submitted that the claims against it should be dismissed.

The question of whether the Complainant was an agency worker and 6Cats Management Services Limited an employment agency for the purposes of the Protection of Employees (Temporary Agency Work) Act 2012. 

It was the Respondent’s submission that the Complainant was an agency worker within the meaning of the Protection of Employees (Temporary Agency Work) Act 2012 and that 6Cats Management Services Limited was an employment agency for the purposes of the Act. The Respondent relied on the statutory definitions set out in section 2, in particular that an agency worker is a person employed by an employment agency under a contract of employment pursuant to which the individual is assigned to work for, and under the direction and supervision of, another undertaking.

The Respondent submitted that it was agreed by all parties, and accepted by the Complainant at the hearing, that from 1 April 2022 the Complainant was employed under a series of fixed-term contracts which named 6Cats Management Services Limited as her employer. Those contracts expressly provided that the Complainant would be assigned to work for and under the direction and supervision of the Respondent. On that basis, the Respondent contended that 6Cats met the definition of an employment agency, the Complainant met the definition of an agency worker, and the Respondent met the definition of a hirer under the 2012 Act.

The Complainant raised the issue of control and who was the correct employer. It was her evidence that Cinesite VFX Limited was the employer and not 6Cats Management Services Limited.

It was the Respondent’s submission that the Complainant’s reliance on the issue of control in asserting that the Respondent was her employer was misplaced in the context of temporary agency work. The Respondent contended that the Protection of Employees (Temporary Agency Work) Act 2012 expressly distinguishes between the role of the employment agency as employer and the role of the hirer as the party providing day‑to‑day direction and supervision. It was submitted that the legislation envisages that, in an agency arrangement, supervision and control are exercised by the hirer without displacing the employment relationship with the employment agency.

The Respondent further submitted that the test of control is relevant only where the issue is whether a worker is an employee or self‑employed, which was not in dispute in this case, as all parties accepted that the Complainant was an employee. The Respondent asserted that the correct test was therefore the application of the statutory definitions under the 2012 Act, including the identity of the contracting parties and the entity that paid the Complainant’s wages.

On that basis, it was submitted that the Complainant was employed by 6Cats under her contracts of employment, which both Respondents understood reflect the employment relationship at all material times, and that the provision of supervision by the Respondent did not render it the employer.

On the issue of jurisdiction, the parties are also invited to provide written legal submission on Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (“Rome 1”) as to where the jurisdiction rests (post Brexit) should Cinesite VFX Limited are found to be the employer.

It was the Respondent’s submission that, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No. 593/2008 (Rome I), Ireland was the appropriate jurisdiction for the claim. It was submitted that where an employee habitually carries out her work in a particular country, that country is the appropriate jurisdiction for employment-related disputes.

The Respondent contended that, even if it was found to be the employer notwithstanding that it is a UK‑registered entity, the relevant jurisdiction would remain Ireland, as the Complainant habitually carried out her work from Ireland. On that basis, the Respondent submitted that the WRC had jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

Preliminary Matter

The first consideration is the questions set out in the letter of 21 January 2026 to the parties.

The question of whether the Complainant was an agency worker and 6Cats Management Services Limited an employment agency for the purposes of the Protection of Employees (Temporary Agency Work) Act 2012. 

It is accepted that the Respondent, engaged Frame25 Limited for the provision of freelance personnel, who in turn engaged 6Cats to act as an Employer of Record in this jurisdiction.

It is common case that the Complainant was initially employed directly by the Respondent on a fixed-term contract from 4 October 2021 until 7 October 2022. However, from 1 April 2022, the Complainant entered into a series of employment contracts with 6Cats, which continued until 11 October 2024.

There was no dispute that the Complainant was at all times an employee.

It should also be noted that there are concerns regarding the manner in which the change to the Complainant’s contractual arrangements was communicated in early 2022. It is noted that the Respondent did not properly or clearly advise the Complainant of the implications of the change in her employment arrangements at that time. While the Respondent’s submissions referred to advice allegedly provided to the Complainant by its finance team regarding available options, no direct evidence of such advice was proffered at the hearing, nor was any contemporaneous written correspondence or letter of advice furnished. The Complainant’s evidence is accepted that she was informed that the change was “for payroll purposes only” , thereby minimising the true nature of the change in employment status.  Given that the Complainant was an employee of the Respondent at the time, it would have been reasonable for the Respondent to provide clear written advice and/or to offer a contribution toward the cost of obtaining independent professional advice when the decision was required. However, it is not accepted that the Complainant signed the contract under duress.

Having regard to the contractual documentation and the evidence presented, it is found that the Complainant was employed by 6Cats under contracts of employment which provided for her assignment to work for another undertaking.

In accordance with Section 2 of the Protection of Employees (Temporary Agency Work) Act 2012, an “employment agency” is a person who employs an individual under a contract of employment by virtue of which that individual may be assigned to work for and under the direction and supervision of another person. These contractual arrangements fall squarely within that definition.

Having regard to Section 2(4) of the Act, that the 6Cats, as the entity responsible for the payment of wages, is deemed to be the employer of the Complainant.

While the Complainant worked exclusively for the Respondent, exclusivity and duration do not preclude an agency arrangement. Considering the contractual terms, particularly the most recent contract of 2 April 2024 expressly provided for an assignment to the Respondent. Furthermore, this is provided for in Section 2 (1) of the 2012 Act.

Accordingly, it is found that the Complainant was an agency worker within the meaning of the Act

6Cats was the employment agency and the Complainant’s employer and the Respondent, Cinesite was the hirer.

The Complainant raised the issue of control and who was the correct employer. It was her evidence that Cinesite VFX Limited was the employer and not 6Cats Management Services Limited.

The Respondent’s submission is accepted in relation to this question; in an agency work context, the provision of day to day supervision and direction by the “hirer” is provided for in the 2012 Act.  It does not, of itself, displace the employment relationship with the employment agency.

It is not accepted that the test of control is relevant only where the issue is whether a worker is an employee or self‑employed as submitted by the Respondent. However, it is found that the exercise of such day to day supervision and direction by Respondent is consistent with the statutory model of agency work provided for in Section 2 of the Act wherein it contemplates that an agency worker may carry out work under the direction and supervision of a hirer, without displacing the identity of the employment agency as employer.

For this reason, it is satisfied that the exercise of operational control by the Respondent was consistent with its role as “hirer” under the Act.

On the issue of jurisdiction, the parties are also invited to provide written legal submission on Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (“Rome 1”) as to where the jurisdiction rests (post Brexit) should Cinesite VFX Limited are found to be the employer.

It is accepted by both parties that the WRC has jurisdiction to hear the complaints. Relying on the evidence presented, it is accepted that the Complainant habitually carried out her work in the Republic of Ireland. Accordingly, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No. 593/2008 (Rome I), the Republic of Ireland and the WRC is the appropriate jurisdiction.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967

CA-00068595-001

Section 1 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 an employer is defined as:-

"employer" means, in relation to an employee, the person with whom the employee has entered into or for whom the employee works under (or, where the employment has ceased, entered into or worked under) a contract of employment, subject to the qualification that the person who under a contract of employment referred to in paragraph (b) of the definition of "contract of employment" is liable to pay the wages of the individual concerned in respect of the work or service concerned shall be deemed to be the individual’s employer.

Having found that the Complainant was, from 1 April 2022, an agency worker employed by 6Cats, and not an employee of the Respondent, it is accepted that the Respondent was not the employer for the purposes of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967.

For this reason, the Complainant’s appeal pursuant to Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act is disallowed.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00068595-002

The Complainant submitted that she did not receive payment in lieu of notice on the termination of her employment on 12 April 2024. However, having found that the Complainant was not an employee of the Respondent on the date of termination, it is found that no entitlement to notice pay could arise as against the Respondent.

In circumstances where it was found that the Respondent was not the employer of the Complainant during the relevant period, it follows that the WRC has no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 as against that Respondent.

In any event, the complaint was presented outside the statutory time limits and no application for an extension of time was made.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

CA-00068595-003

Having found that the Complainant was not an employee of the Respondent at the time of the cessation of her engagement, no entitlement to minimum notice could arise as against that Respondent.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967

CA-00068595-001

For the reasons outlined the Complainant’s appeal is disallowed.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00068595-002

I find the complaint is not well founded.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

CA-00068595-003

I find the complaint is not well founded.

Employer on Record