Employee or Contractor? Why Labels Might Not Protect You Anymore

August 12, 2025

Lessons from the Lingard Case

A recent decision by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) has put a spotlight on the blurred lines between independent contractors and employees and what it means for employers in Ireland. The case of Lingard v Randridge International Ltd is a timely reminder that what’s written in a contract isn’t always the last word when it comes to employment status.


The Background


Mr Lingard provided services to Randridge International Ltd through his own limited company, PSL (Aberdeen) Ltd. On paper, this was a classic independent contractor setup. However, Mr Lingard later argued that the reality of his day-to-day role was much closer to that of an employee, and therefore, he was entitled to rights and protections under employment law, including unpaid wages under the Payment of Wages Act 1991.


Randridge disagreed, relying on the original contract, which clearly stated that Mr Lingard was not an employee and had no employment rights. So, how did this end up in front of the WRC?


Why Contracts Aren’t Always Enough


The key issue was whether Mr Lingard’s working relationship with Randridge had shifted over time from an independent contractor to an employee. While the contract said one thing, the WRC looked at what was actually happening on the ground.


This approach reflects a growing trend in Irish employment law, where courts and tribunals are less concerned with what a contract calls someone, and more focused on how the relationship actually functions. The Supreme Court’s landmark Karshan (Domino’s Pizza) decision reinforced this, setting out a five-part test to help assess employment status.


Applying the Karshan Test


The WRC used the Karshan framework to evaluate Mr Lingard’s status:


  1. Was he paid for his work? Yes, through his limited company, but he was paid directly for personal service.
  2. Did he have to do the work himself? Yes, while the contract allowed for substitution, this never actually happened.
  3. Was there control over how he worked? Yes, he had to clock in and out, meet deadlines, and avoid outside work, all of which pointed to a significant level of control.
  4. Were these factors consistent with employment? The WRC said yes, the nature of the role and the expectations placed on him looked more like employment than independent contracting.
  5. Were there any legislative reasons to consider him an employee? Yes, and based on all five factors, the WRC found that Mr Lingard was an employee for the purposes of the claim.


What About the “Employer”?


Once the WRC determined Mr Lingard was effectively an employee, Randridge was held liable to pay the outstanding invoices as wages. This was a significant finding, not just in terms of cost, but in terms of legal and reputational risk.


Lifting the Corporate Veil


A particularly important aspect of the decision is that it shows the WRC is willing to “lift the corporate veil”. Just because someone operates through their own company doesn’t mean they’re not an employee. If the reality is that the worker is integrated into the business, under its control, and working in the same way as employees, then the courts may well decide that’s exactly what they are – regardless of the written contract.


Practical Guidance for Employers


This case serves as a cautionary tale. Employers must take a holistic view of how contractor relationships are managed:


  • Don't rely solely on contract wording, courts will focus on how the relationship works in practice.
  • Review contractor arrangements regularly, especially where roles change or the person becomes embedded in your team.
  • Keep an eye on control and direction, contractors should operate with autonomy and should not be managed like employees.
  • Understand the revised Code of Practice, jointly issued by the WRC, Revenue and the Department of Social Protection, it offers practical guidance on assessing employment status using the five-factor Karshan test.


Final Thoughts


The Lingard case reminds employers that legal risks can emerge where contractors are treated, or evolve, into employees over time. While using independent contractors can offer flexibility and cost savings, it’s essential to ensure that arrangements are carefully structured and regularly reviewed.


If in doubt, or if your company relies heavily on independent contractors, now is the time to assess the reality of those relationships. A proactive review could help you avoid claims under the Payment of Wages Act or other employee entitlements in the future.


Need Support Reviewing Contractor Arrangements?


At MSS The HR People, we work with employers across Ireland to help them navigate contractor relationships, avoid misclassification risks, and stay compliant with evolving employment law.


If you're unsure whether your contractors might be deemed employees, or you simply want peace of mind, get in touch with our expert team today.


Email: info@mssthehrpeople.ie  Phone: 018870690


Or visit www.mssthehrpeople.ie to learn more about how we support businesses like yours.

International Hiring: A Growing Solution for Irish Employers

By Tara Daly • May 19, 2026
Irish employers are increasingly turning to international hiring as a solution to ongoing skills shortages. This trend is particularly evident in sectors where local talent is limited and demand continues to grow. Why employers are looking overseas Common drivers include: • Difficulty filling specialist roles locally • Business expansion and growth • Increased competition for talent International hiring can provide access to a wider talent pool and support long-term workforce planning. The challenge While the opportunity is clear, the employment permit process can be complex. Employers often underestimate: • The level of detail required in applications • The importance of aligning with eligibility criteria • The potential for delays or refusals Where the process is not managed properly, the impact can be significant. Roles remain open for longer, business plans are affected, and onboarding timelines move further out than expected. Getting it right A structured and informed approach is essential. This includes: • Understanding the appropriate permit type • Ensuring the role meets eligibility requirements • Preparing a clear and robust application Where employers take the time to position the role properly and support the application with strong documentation, the process is far more likely to run smoothly. Key takeaway for employers International hiring can be a highly effective solution, but only where the permit process is managed correctly. Approached properly, it enables businesses to secure the talent they need to grow and succeed with greater certainty and less disruption. If you would like advice or support with the employment permit process, our team would be happy to assist. info@mssthehrpeople.ie | 01 887 0690

Employment Permits in Ireland: Why a “Submit and See” Approach Can Cost You

By Tara Daly • May 13, 2026
A common approach we encounter is employers submitting an employment permit application and waiting to see what happens. While understandable, this approach carries significant risk. Why this approach falls short Employment permit applications are not a simple box-ticking exercise. Each application is assessed based on: • Eligibility • Justification • Alignment with current criteria If any of these elements are unclear or insufficient, the application may be delayed or refused. The impact of getting it wrong Where an application is unsuccessful: • Timelines are extended • Recruitment plans are disrupted • Candidates may withdraw In a competitive hiring market, these delays can have a real impact on the business. A role can remain unfilled for longer than expected, existing teams can come under pressure, and a strong candidate may choose another opportunity. A better approach Employers should approach permit applications as a structured process, focusing on: • Clear alignment with eligibility criteria • Strong and accurate role definition • Comprehensive supporting rationale It is far more effective to identify and address risk areas before submission than to deal with the consequences of delay or refusal later. Key takeaway for employers Submitting an application without fully assessing the risks can lead to avoidable delays. A well-prepared application significantly improves the likelihood of a successful outcome and gives the employer greater confidence throughout the process. If you’re planning an overseas hire or facing delays, we’re happy to talk it through. info@mssthehrpeople.ie | 01 887 0690
WRC awards €15,000 after employee kept on “specific purpose” contract for 10 years

WRC awards €15,000 after employee kept on “specific purpose” contract for 10 years

By Amy Vickers • May 7, 2026
A recent WRC decision is a very important reminder to employers that long running “specific purpose” and fixed term arrangements can create significant risk
Workplace Bullying, Harassment and Sexual Harassment Claims Are Rising

Workplace Bullying, Harassment and Sexual Harassment Claims Are Rising

By Amy Vickers • May 7, 2026
Increase in complaints relating to bullying, harassment, and sexual harassment and the complexity and escalation of these cases.
Supporting Employees Through Pregnancy Loss

Supporting Employees Through Pregnancy Loss

By Amy Vickers • May 7, 2026
Pregnancy loss is a deeply personal experience. For employers, these situations can be equally challenging because of the uncertainty around it.
Psychological Illness Now the Leading Cause of Income Protection Claims in Ireland

Psychological Illness Now the Leading Cause of Income Protection Claims in Ireland

By Amy Vickers • May 7, 2026
significant shift in workplace health trends, with psychological illness now the most common cause of income protection claims in Ireland.

Why Employment Permits Get Delayed in Ireland and How to Avoid It

By Tara Daly • May 5, 2026
Delays in employment permit applications are a frequent frustration for employers. Many assume the issue lies with processing times or administrative backlogs. In reality, the most common cause of delay is something else entirely. The real issue: misalignment The number one reason applications are delayed is misalignment with the eligibility criteria. This can include: • Roles that are not clearly defined • Job descriptions that do not match the required skill level • Weak or generic supporting information On the surface, an application may appear complete. However, if it does not clearly demonstrate eligibility, it is likely to encounter delays or queries. Why this happens Employers often approach the process as an administrative task. In practice, each application is assessed on its merits, and clarity is critical. How to avoid delays To reduce the risk of delay: • Ensure the role clearly meets eligibility requirements • Align job descriptions with the actual duties and level of the role • Provide strong, specific supporting information It is also important to review the application from the perspective of the decision-maker. If the application leaves room for doubt, it is far more likely to be delayed while clarification is sought. Key takeaway for employers Employment permits are not delayed because of missing forms. They are delayed because the application does not clearly meet the criteria. Understanding how your application will be assessed is essential, particularly where timelines are already under pressure and the business needs certainty around a key hire. If you’re planning an overseas hire or facing delays, we’re happy to talk it through. info@mssthehrpeople.ie | 01 887 0690

Avoiding Refusal: Strengthening a High-Risk Employment Permit Application

By Tara Daly • April 28, 2026
One of the most challenging scenarios for employers is progressing an employment permit application that appears complete, but carries a high risk of refusal. In many cases, this risk only becomes apparent once a decision has been issued. We were recently engaged by a client in the healthcare support sector who had already begun preparing an application for a General Employment Permit for a specialist role. The situation The employer had: • Identified a suitable overseas candidate • Undertaken initial steps in the application process • Prepared the necessary documentation However, they sought a review before submission due to uncertainty around eligibility. What we identified On review, it became clear that the application, as drafted, was unlikely to succeed. The risks were not immediately obvious but included: • A job description that did not clearly demonstrate the level of skill required • Duties that overlapped with roles not typically eligible for a permit • Insufficient detail in the business case supporting the hire From experience, these types of issues frequently result in refusals, particularly where roles sit close to the margins of eligibility. Why this matters A refusal does not just mean a rejected application. It often results in: • Restarting the process from the beginning • Additional recruitment delays • Potential loss of the candidate In sectors already experiencing staffing pressures, this can have a significant operational impact. Our approach We worked with the employer to: • Refine and clarify the role profile to accurately reflect its responsibilities and requirements • Distinguish the role from non-eligible positions • Strengthen the supporting documentation to clearly demonstrate eligibility and business need. This required a detailed understanding of how similar roles are assessed in practice. The outcome Following revision, the application was submitted and approved on first submission. The employer avoided: • A likely refusal • Delays in onboarding • Disruption to service delivery Key takeaway for employers Applications are not assessed solely on whether documentation is present. They are assessed on whether the role, as presented, clearly meets the criteria. Where roles are borderline or nuanced, early intervention can significantly reduce the risk of refusal. If you’re planning an overseas hire or facing delays, we’re happy to talk it through. info@mssthehrpeople.ie | 01 887 0690
Securing a Critical Skills Employment Permit: When Timelines Start to Slip

Securing a Critical Skills Employment Permit: When Timelines Start to Slip

By Tara Daly • April 23, 2026
Irish employers are increasingly relying on international hiring to fill key roles, particularly in sectors experiencing acute skills shortages.

WRC Awards €142,984 in Unfair Dismissal Case Following Senior Executive Redundancy

April 9, 2026
WRC Reference: ADJ-00057077 / 11 th March 2026 A recent decision of the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) has highlighted the importance of fair procedures, genuine consultation, and meaningful engagement in redundancy processes, particularly where senior executives are involved. Background The Complainant was employed by the Respondent for over 24 years, beginning in 2000. Over the course of her career, she progressed to the senior role of Managing Director, EMEA GLT, with a base salary of €275,000, alongside bonus and equity participation. In mid-2024, the Complainant’s role was significantly altered following an internal restructuring. She alleged that this amounted to an effective demotion, with key responsibilities removed without consultation or warning. Shortly afterwards, the situation escalated. The Complainant was placed on sick leave and raised a formal grievance regarding the changes to her role. That grievance was not upheld, and the appeal outcome confirmed the employer’s position. In October 2024, the Complainant was informed that her role was at risk of redundancy. A consultation process followed, during which she was placed on garden leave. Despite raising concerns and requesting further clarity around her role and terms, her employment was ultimately terminated by reason of redundancy in November 2024. The Complainant subsequently brought a claim for unfair dismissal. WRC Findings The Respondent conceded at the hearing that the dismissal was unfair. The Adjudication Officer noted that the Complainant had been employed in a very senior position for over two decades and had progressed through multiple promotions, ultimately holding a Managing Director role. It was accepted that significant changes had been made to her responsibilities prior to the redundancy process, which formed part of the broader context leading to the breakdown in the employment relationship. While a redundancy process was carried out, the key issue before the WRC was the fairness of the overall dismissal. Given the Respondent’s concession, the WRC found that the Complainant had been unfairly dismissed. Decision The WRC upheld the complaint of unfair dismissal and awarded the Complainant €142,984 in compensation A separate complaint relating to notice was rejected on the basis that statutory notice had already been included in the termination payment. Key Takeaways for Employers This decision highlights several important points for employers, particularly in the context of senior-level restructurings: Role changes must be handled carefully, particularly where they may amount to demotion in practice. Consultation must be genuine and meaningful, even at executive level. Grievances should be addressed thoroughly and fairly before moving to redundancy. Redundancy processes must be clearly separated from performance or role disputes. Senior employees are entitled to the same procedural protections as all employees. Even where restructuring is commercially justified, employers must ensure that process and communication are properly managed to avoid unfair dismissal findings. Conclusion This case serves as a reminder that long service and seniority do not reduce the employer’s obligations under employment law. Where role changes, grievances, and redundancy processes overlap, employers must take particular care to ensure fairness at every stage. Failure to do so can result in significant compensation awards, as demonstrated by the €142,984 award made in this case. Tara Daly