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.


By Tara Daly February 4, 2026
The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) has updated its Code of Practice on Access to Part-Time Work, providing clearer guidance on best practices for employers and employees in today’s flexible working environment. While the revised Code is similar to the previous version, it adopts a more positive tone towards part-time work, presenting it as a modern and flexible way of working rather than an exception . In particular, the Code places greater emphasis on work–life balance considerations, including from the perspective of parents and carers. Although the Code does not create a legal right to part-time work, it sets clear expectations for employers in terms of how requests should be handled and reinforces the importance of fair and consistent treatment of employees. Key Updates and Takeaways Part-Time Work as a Positive Option The updated code recognises part-time work as a valuable way to enhance labour market participation and provide flexibility. Employers are encouraged to view part-time arrangements as a strategic and beneficial option, rather than a limitation. Equal Treatment A central principle of the code is that part-time employees must not be treated less favourably than full-time employees. This means that pay, benefits, access to training, and career progression should be proportionate and fair, ensuring that part-time staff are not at a disadvantage. Structured Procedures for Requests A key development in the revised Code is the increased emphasis on employers adopting a clear, step-by-step framework when dealing with requests to move between full-time and part-time work. Employers are encouraged to: Review and update policies to reflect the code’s guidance. Respond to requests following a clear, structured procedure. Provide meaningful reasons if a request cannot be accommodated. Rather than informal consultation alone, requests should now be considered through a structured and documented process. Flexible Roles and Recruitment The revised Code encourages employers to consider whether part-time working can be accommodated at the point of job design and recruitment. This may include job-sharing arrangements, flexible schedules, or adjusting workloads to maintain role effectiveness. Responsibilities of Employers and Employees Under the revised code, employers are expected to establish clear policies, actively monitor roles for flexibility, provide part-time employees with equal access to training, and ensure that no employee is penalised for requesting part-time work. It is equally important to communicate with all staff about part-time opportunities, including how to request them and the criteria used to assess requests. Clear communication helps maintain transparency and ensures a fair, consistent approach to flexible working across the organisation. Employees, in turn, are responsible for complying with agreed arrangements, understanding that not all roles may be suitable for part-time work, and performing their duties as required. Both employers and employees play an important role in making part-time arrangements fair, transparent, and effective. Legal Relevance Although the code is not legally binding, it is admissible in evidence. Adjudicators may rely on it when assessing whether an employer’s approach to part-time work requests is reasonable, fair and aligned with best practice. What Does This Mean for Your Business? The revised Code encourages employers to take a more structured and considered approach to part-time working, while also protecting the operational needs of the business. For SMEs in particular, clear procedures and consistent decision-making are essential to managing requests effectively and avoiding unintended legal or operational risks. Having a documented process helps employers demonstrate fair consideration of requests, apply objective business grounds where flexibility is not feasible, and maintain continuity of service. Done properly, part-time arrangements can support retention and engagement without undermining productivity or resourcing.  Part-time work should not be viewed as an automatic entitlement or an informal arrangement. Employers are encouraged to review their policies, communicate expectations clearly, and ensure that any flexibility granted is sustainable, consistent, and defensible if challenged. If you need any assistance reviewing your company policies in line with this revised Code of Practice, please do not hesitate to contact MSS The HR People. PH: 018870690 Email: info@mssthehrpeople.ie
By Tara Daly February 4, 2026
A recent Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) decision highlights the significant risks employers face when they fail to follow fair procedures in managing employee illness and highly sensitive personal circumstances. In this case, a sushi chef who was dismissed shortly after suffering a miscarriage was awarded €8,000 in compensation for unfair dismissal. The decision serves as an important reminder to employers that regardless of previous concerns around attendance or conduct, employers must act reasonably, compassionately and in accordance with fair procedures. Background of the Case The complainant was employed as a sushi chef with Beacon Sushi Limited. In early 2024, she informed her employer that she was unwell and subsequently confirmed that she had suffered a miscarriage. She later provided a medical certificate covering her absence from work. Approximately five days after the miscarriage, the employee received a WhatsApp message notifying her that her employment was being terminated and that she was expected to work her notice period, even though she was medically unfit to do so at the time. The employer claimed that the dismissal was due to concerns regarding timekeeping and the employees alleged failure to follow the company’s absence reporting procedures. WRC Findings The WRC adjudication officer found that the dismissal was unfair and was critical of the manner in which the employer handled the situation. The WRC noted that the dismissal letter did not set out any clear reasons for termination and that no meeting was held with the employee prior to the decision being made. In addition to this, the employee was never given an opportunity to respond to the concerns raised, nor was she afforded a right of appeal. The adjudicator also considered that the employer was aware of the employee’s medical circumstances when the dismissal decision was made. The WRC found that dismissing an employee in such circumstances, while she was on certified sick leave and without any fair or transparent process, fell well short of the standards required under Irish employment law. As a result, the employee was awarded €8,000 in compensation for unfair dismissal. Key Lessons for Employers This case serves as a reminder that fair procedures are essential in all dismissal situations, regardless of the surrounding circumstances. Even where an employer believes there are legitimate concerns relating to attendance or conduct, employees must be informed of those concerns, given a meaningful opportunity to respond, and provided with access to an appeal process. The decision also highlights the need for particular care where an employee is medically vulnerable or experiencing significant personal trauma. Employers are expected to exercise sensitivity and sound judgement when managing illness-related absences, particularly when the employer is already aware of the employee’s medical condition. Dismissals that take place during periods of certified sick leave carry an increased level of risk and will be closely scrutinised by the WRC. This risk is further heightened where dismissals are communicated informally, such as by text message or WhatsApp. Informal communication around dismissals has been repeatedly criticised by the WRC. Finally, the case demonstrates that management policies should be applied thoughtfully and must consider the individual circumstances at hand, rather than being rigid. While policies provide an important framework, they should not be used as a substitute for fair judgement or proper procedures. Conclusion This WRC decision is a timely reminder of the legal and reputational risks that can arise when employers fail to follow fair procedures, particularly in cases involving illness or sensitive personal circumstances. Employers should regularly review their practices around sick leave management, disciplinary procedures and dismissals, to ensure compliance with employment legislation and alignment with best practice.  If you require advice on managing sick leave, dismissals or disciplinary processes, please do not hesitate to contact MSS The HR People: Ph 018870690, Email: info@mssthehrpeople.ie
The Cost of a Bad Hire: Why Recruitment Decisions Matter More Than Ever
By Tara Daly February 4, 2026
A bad hire is no longer just inconvenient. In today’s environment, a poor recruitment decision can cost an organisation tens of thousands of euro
When Workplace Rights Collide: UK Tribunal Ruling Highlights Employer Risk Complaint
By Tara Daly February 4, 2026
A recent UK tribunal decision highlights the challenges employers face in balancing competing workplace rights, particularly around sex, gender identity and dignity.
Recruitment in 2026: Why Employers Are Struggling to Attract Talent and What Actually Works
By Tara Daly February 4, 2026
Recruitment in 2026 is no longer about filling vacancies its about understanding candidate behaviour, expectations and risk tolerance in a post pandemic, high cost of living labour market.
WRC Awards €6,500 in Discriminatory Dismissal Sick Leave Case
By Tara Daly February 4, 2026
A recent WRC decision highlighted the importance of handling sick leave and disability accommodations appropriately in the workplace.
By Tara Daly February 4, 2026
Salary transparency is no longer optional.
Revenue Clampdown on ‘Bogus’ Self-Employment
By Tara Daly February 4, 2026
Revenue Commissioners are stepping up enforcement against bogus self-employment, situations where workers are incorrectly classified as self-employed
Last Minute Regulation on Auto Enrolment
By Tara Daly January 7, 2026
Last minute regulation signed by the Minister for Social Protection provides important clarification for employers ahead of the introduction of My Future Fund.
The EU Pay Transparency Directive: What Employers Need to Prepare for in 2026
By Tara Daly January 7, 2026
The Directive is designed to address gender pay inequality by increasing transparency around pay, recruitment practices and internal pay structures.