Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Rebecca  Manning

6Cats Management Services Limited

Representatives

Self-Represented.

Emily Ward‑Master, Director of Legal and Compliance

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-00068371-001

30/12/2024

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

CA-00068371-002

30/12/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 10 of the European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003 (S.I. No. 131 of 2003)

CA-00068371-003

30/12/2024

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

CA-00068371-004

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 Cinesite VFX Limited, who at all times was her employer and did not receive her contractual minimum notice, not receive all her rights during the period of notice and her rights were not observed by the Respondent. It was her evidence that the Respondent was simply used for payroll purposes and not her employer. Documentation was submitted by the Complainant and shared with the Respondent.

Ms Emily Ward‑Master, Director of Legal and Compliance gave evidence on behalf of the Respondent on Affirmation. The Respondent was described as operating globally under the Workwell Global Group as an Employer of Record. It was the Respondent’s position that the Complainant’s contract of employment expired and therefore, she was did not qualify for redundancy, minimum notice nor was there any outstanding wages. Written submissions and documentation were received from the Respondent and shared with the Complainant.

The opportunity to engage in cross‑examination was extended to both parties, and neither elected to do so.

These claims were heard in conjunction with similar complaints against the Cinesite VFX Limited (“Cinesite”) ADJ-00056343.

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.

In reply, written submissions were received from the Complainant but not the Respondent.

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 12 April 2024 which 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 she had been moved onto a less favourable contract under false pretences from Cinesite to the Respondent, resulting in the loss of benefits and entitlements which she had carefully negotiated in her original contract, and these benefits ought to have continued.

The Complainant submitted that she was informed that the subsequent contracts with the Cinesite’s Chief of HR the Respondent’s contract was “for payroll purposes only” and that, while she had pushed back with Cinesite, she ultimately signed the contracts under duress, believing that further resistance would damage her relationship with Cinesite.  

It was her evidence that it was Cinesite advised her of her termination and not the Respondent. Similarly, it was Cinesite who agreed to pay the additional ex gratia payment, again not the Respondent.

It was submitted that the Respondent was not her employer and at all times her employer was Cinsite.

It was her evidence the calculation of the two months’ notice was incorrect leaving her two weeks short. She further submitted the fact the payment was made in one lump sum she did not benefit from her full personal tax credits and also raised issues with the date of termination recorded with Revenue by the Respondent.

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 Cinesite and worked continuously and exclusively for Cinesite, albeit across multiple projects, all of which formed part of Cinesite’s normal production pipeline. She was never assigned to another hirer, and all client interactions were arranged by Cinesite for its own clients.

The Complainant submitted that the introduction of the Respondent was represented to her as an Irish payroll and tax arrangement only, a position supported by an email from Frame25 referring to the Respondent as its Irish payroll partner. She stated that her role, duties, reporting lines, and working arrangements did not change, and that in practice the Respondent’s involvement was limited solely to payroll administration. She contended that the Respondent 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 the Respondent other than on payroll matters.

She further submitted that Cinesite retained full control over her role, duties, and termination throughout, and that the payroll arrangement was designed and implemented by Cinesite through Frame25. She contended that responsibility for ensuring the contractual arrangements reflected the reality of the relationship rested with Cinesite. The Complainant also raised concerns regarding the failure to provide termination documentation and errors by the Respondent 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 the Respondent to Cinesite, 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 Cinesite was her employer in substance and exercised employer control throughout her employment. She stated that Cinesite 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 involving the Respondent, 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 submitted that she was fully integrated into Cinesite’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 Cinesite was the employer in practice, and that the Respondent’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 Cinesite 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 Cinesite’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 Cinesite’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.

Ms Ward‑Masters submitted that she fully acknowledged that the period in question had been a difficult one for the Complainant, and that the position advanced by 6Cats was not intended to diminish the personal challenges experienced. She stated that her evidence was confined to explaining the legal and contractual position relevant to the complaint.

It was submitted that 6Cats Management Services Limited formed part of the Workwell Group, and that the organisation operated globally as an Employer of Record. The witness explained that Respondent maintained local employing entities globally and provided payroll services together with employment law compliance. In circumstances where a client lacked a local presence in a particular jurisdiction, the Respondent became the legal employer of the worker, while the individual was assigned to perform services for the end client.

It was submitted that this was the precise arrangement that applied in the Complainant’s case following her decision not to relocate to the United Kingdom. From April 2022, the Respondent became the Complainant’s legal employer, replacing the previous UK payroll arrangement operated by Cinesite. Ms Ward‑Masters stated that any belief that Cinesite continued to employ the Complainant after that date was incorrect, and that the legal position was clearly set out in the written contracts issued by the Respondent.

Ms Ward‑Masters referred to the full fixed‑term contracts entered into between the Respondent and the Complainant. Each contract was said to contain a clearly defined expiry date, and those contracts governed the employment relationship for the relevant period. While the end client may have continued to liaise directly with the Complainant in the course of her work, Ms Ward‑Masters submitted that this was a common and lawful arrangement within “Employer of Record” structures and did not alter the legal employment relationship.

In relation to the redundancy claim, it was submitted that the Complainant’s employment was governed by a sequence of fixed‑term contracts, the final of which expired by the natural effluxion of time at the end of 2024. The contract ended exactly as provided for in its written terms. The witnesses’ evidence was that there was no dismissal and no early termination, and therefore no redundancy within the meaning of the Redundancy Payments Acts. She stated that, in Irish law, the expiry of a fixed‑term contract on its agreed end date does not constitute a redundancy situation.

Ms Ward‑Master’s further submitted that, although the Complainant was given advance notice as a courtesy, there was no legal requirement to provide notice where a fixed‑term contract expires naturally. Notice, she stated, is required only where a fixed‑term contract is terminated prior to its expiry date. Had the contract been terminated early, the statutory minimum notice applicable to the Complainant would have been two weeks, and the contract itself contemplated a two‑month notice period in such circumstances. However, as the contract expired naturally, no notice obligation arose.

In response to the Payment of Wages Act 1991 claim, Ms Ward‑Masters submitted that all wages were paid correctly and that there had been no unlawful deduction. She stated that the six‑week payment made to the Complainant was a goodwill or ex gratia payment, was not legally required, and was made expressly without any admission of liability. In her submission, the Complainant’s legal entitlement in circumstances of natural contract expiry was nil.

The witness addressed references to payments being described as “in lieu of notice” and submitted that this was an informal or off‑hand description, and that the payment was not connected to any notice obligation, as none arose.

She further submitted that claims under TUPE‑related provisions or Regulation 10 could not arise in circumstances where there was no transfer of undertaking and no redundancy dismissal.

It was Ms Ward‑Masters’ evidence the terms of the Respondent’s contracts were not less favourable than those of the original Cinesite contract, noting in particular that both contracts were of a fixed‑term nature and contained substantially similar provisions concerning expiry. She stated that the same outcome would have occurred regardless of whether the Complainant had remained on the Cinesite contract or transferred to the Respondent.

In conclusion, it was submitted on behalf of the Respondent that the Complainant’s employment ended through the natural expiry of a fixed‑term contract, that no redundancy arose, and that the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment legislation did not apply. It was further submitted that the Complainant received courtesy notice and an additional six‑week goodwill payment in excess of any legal requirement. On that basis, it was her submission that all claims against Respondent should be dismissed, and that none of the statutory provisions relied upon by the Complainant applied to a natural fixed‑term expiry, as clearly set out in Clause 12 of the contracts.

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. 

The Respondent is a company registered in this jurisdiction which describes itself as an “Employer of Record”, assuming responsibility for payroll, taxation compliance and the legal employment relationship. An Employer of Record is not currently defined in Irish employment legislation.

The Respondent entered into a “Framework Agreement for the Supply of Services” with Frame25 Limited (“Frame25”), a UK‑registered entity, pursuant to which the Respondent agreed to provide contractor management services. It is further accepted that Frame25 entered into a separate agreement with Cinesite for the provision of freelance personnel. The Complainant was not a party to either agreement.

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

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

Having regard to the contractual documentation and the evidence presented, it is found that the Complainant was employed by the Respondent under contracts of employment which provided for her assignment to work for another undertaking. It is further accepted that the Respondent was responsible for the payment of the Complainant’s wages.

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 Respondent, as the entity responsible for the payment of wages, is deemed to be the employer of the Complainant.

Accordingly, it is found that the Complainant was an agency worker within the meaning of the Act, the Respondent was an employment agency and the Complainant’s employer and 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 Complainant submitted that Cinesite was her employer, relying on the fact that it exercised day to day supervision, direction and control over her work.

It is accepted that the Complainant was assigned to work for Cinesite and that Cinesite exercised operational control over her duties, including the allocation of work and supervision of performance.

However, it is found that the exercise of such day to day supervision and direction by Cinesite 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.

It is further accepted that the Complainant entered contracts of employment with the Respondent which expressly identified the Respondent as her employer and provided for assignment to a third party.

The test of control does not determine the identity of the employer in circumstances where the statutory framework governing agency work applies. Rather, the determinative factors are the contractual relationship and, in particular, the entity responsible for the payment of wages.

Having regard to these matters, the Respondent retained the legal employment relationship with the Complainant, and the Respondent was the entity responsible for payment of wages and contractual obligations together with the fact that Cinesite exercised day to day control does not render it the employer. Accordingly, it is found that the Respondent was the Complainant’s employer for the purposes of the complaints before the WRC.

The third preliminary matter which requires consideration is: -

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 contract of employment includes a jurisdictional clause stating the agreement “shall be governed by and construed in accordance with Irish law. The legal venue shall be the Republic of Ireland.”

Furthermore, it is accepted by the Complainant that the WRC has jurisdiction to hear the complaints. This was not disputed by the Respondent. 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-00068371-001

Section 9 (1) (b) of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 (as amended) defines “dismissal” in fixed term contracts:-

“9.—(1) For the purposes of this Part an employee shall, subject to this Part, be taken to be dismissed by his employer if but only if—

(b) where, under the contract under which the employee is employed by the employer the employee is employed for a fixed term or for a specified purpose (being a purpose of such a kind that the duration of the contract was limited but was, at the time of its making, incapable of precise ascertainment), that term expires or that purpose ceases without being renewed under the same or similar contract,”

Section 9(1)(b) of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 (as amended) provides that, where an employee is employed under a fixed-term contract which expires without renewal, that employee is taken to be dismissed.

The Complainant’s employment was governed by a series of fixed-term contracts, each containing a defined end date. The Respondent presented and relied upon four separate contracts with assignment start and end dates as follows:

The final contract expired in accordance with its agreed terms on 11 October 2024. Accordingly, it is found that the Complainant was dismissed within the meaning of the Acts.

The issue for determination is whether that dismissal occurred by reason of redundancy, within the meaning of Section 7 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967.

Section 7 provides that redundancy arises where the dismissal is attributable wholly or mainly to one or more of the following:

§  The employer ceasing or intending to cease to carry on the business;

§  The requirement of the business for employees to carry out work of a particular kind having ceased or diminished;

§  The employer deciding that the work should henceforth be carried out in a different manner or by fewer employees.

It is found that the relevant employer for the purposes of this analysis is the Respondent having regard to the finding in ADJ-00056343 that the Complainant was an agency worker and that the Respondent was her legal employer.

The Complainant’s evidence was that her role effectively continued within Cinesite and that work of the kind she performed remained available. She further submitted that other employees were retained or promoted and that she was not allocated work in the period prior to the termination of her contract.

However, it is found that the assessment of redundancy must be made by reference to the legal employment relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent, rather than the operational arrangements within the hirer’s business.

In this regard, it is accepted that the Respondent operated a model whereby employees were engaged on fixed-term contracts for the purpose of assignment to a hirer. It is 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.

There is no evidence before me that the Respondent’s requirement for employees to perform work of the kind carried out by the Complainant ceased or diminished within the meaning of Section 7. Rather, the evidence supports that the Complainant’s employment ended upon the expiry of a specific contractual assignment, which was not renewed.

While it is accepted that work may have continued to exist within the hirer’s organisation, it is found that this does not, of itself, establish redundancy within the meaning of the Acts. The statutory test requires an assessment of the employer’s requirement for employees, and not the ongoing operational needs of the hirer.

There was no evidence was adduced to demonstrate that the Respondent made a decision to reduce the number of employees carrying out work of a particular kind, or that the Complainant was selected for dismissal from a pool of employees in circumstances giving rise to redundancy.

In the circumstances, the termination of the Complainant’s employment arose from the expiry of a fixed-term contract linked to a specific assignment, rather than from a redundancy situation as defined by statute.

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

CA-00068371-002

The Complainant submitted that the calculation of notice pay was incorrect, that the payment was made in a single lump sum affecting her tax position, and that issues arose in respect of the termination date recorded with Revenue. However, it is found that no entitlement to notice pay arose, as the Complainant’s fixed-term contract expired by effluxion of time. It is questionable why an additional payment of six weeks’ pay was made on an ex gratia basis, without admission of liability, if the Respondent was of the belief no such payment was due. An ex gratia payment does not constitute wages properly payable for the purposes of the Act

However, where no additional wages were properly payable pursuant to Section 5 (6) of the Payment of Wages Act 1991, it is found the complaint is not well founded.

For completeness, issues relating to taxation treatment or Revenue reporting do not fall within the scope of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 and do not constitute an unlawful deduction within the meaning of the Act.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 10 of the European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003 (S.I. No. 131 of 2003)

CA-00068371-003

It is found that the application of the TUPE Regulations requires the existence of a transfer of an undertaking or economic entity retaining its identity.

It is accepted that the evidence establishes a triangular relationship between the Respondent, Frame25 Limited and Cinesite.

There was no evidence presented of any transfer of a business, undertaking or economic entity having occurred. There was no transfer of assets, employees, or organisational structure. The only change identified related to a contractual and payroll arrangement, rather than a transfer within the meaning of TUPE.

It is therefore found that the circumstances do not meet the statutory definition of a transfer of undertaking.

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

CA-00068371-004

Section 5 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 sets out the rights of employee during period of notice:

“5.—(1) The provisions of the Second Schedule to this Act shall have effect in relation to the liability of an employer during the period of notice required by this Act to be given—

(a) by an employer to terminate the contract of employment of an employee who has been in his continuous service for thirteen weeks or more, and

(b) by an employee who has been in such continuous service to terminate his contract of employment with that employer.

(2) This section shall not apply in any case where an employee gives notice to terminate his contract of employment in response to a notice of lay-off or short-time given by his employer.

(3) Any provision in a contract which purports to exclude or limit the obligation imposed on an employer by this section shall be void.”

The Complainant contended that she was entitled to notice. However, the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973 applies where an employer terminates a contract of employment. Where it has been found that the fixed term contract expired no notice period applies where the contract expires on its agreed end date.

Any contractual provision relating to notice applied only in circumstances of early termination and was not engaged in this case. It is further found that the ex gratia payment made by the Respondent was discretionary and does not give rise to a statutory entitlement.

Consequently, the complaint is not well founded.

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

CA-00068371-001

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-00068371-002

I find the complaint is not well founded.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 10 of the European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003 (S.I. No. 131 of 2003)

CA-00068371-003

I find the complaint is note well founded.

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

CA-00068371-004

I find the complaint is not well founded.

Employer of Record