Matthew McGranahan v MEPC Music Limited [2024]
Decision Number: ADJ-00037668 Legal Body: Workplace Relations Commission
Published on: 02/04/2025
Issues Covered:
Article Authors The main content of this article was provided by the following authors.
Duncan Inverarity Partner & Head of Employment Law, A&L Goodbody LLP
Duncan Inverarity Partner & Head of Employment Law, A&L Goodbody LLP
Duncan inverarity 100x100

Duncan Inverarity a partner and Head of A&L Goodbody's Employment Law group and has practiced exclusively in the area of employment law and industrial relations in multiple jurisdictions. Duncan advises public and private sector employers on both contentious and non-contentious matters. He advises Board rooms across Ireland and abroad on strategic and complex employment and industrial relations matters. Duncan also specialises in crisis management for clients and has advised on some of the most high profile corporate issues in Ireland. Duncan regularly appears for clients in the Workplace Relations Commission, the Circuit Court, the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. Duncan also acts for partnerships in mediated settlements and in proceedings in the High Court.

Summary

A former fiddler for top country music star Michael English was awarded nearly €44,000 in the WRC for unfair dismissal and breaches of employment rights after a tribunal rejected claims that the musician was a contractor working “gig to gig” for six years

Background

The Complainant is a musician (fiddler) who started providing his services to the Respondent band in January 2014. In May 2020, the Complainant contacted the Scope Section of the Department of Social Protection alleging that he believed he fitted the criteria for being an employee and was therefore eligible for the Pandemic Unemployment Payments. Scope determined that the Complainant was an employee for the purposes of social insurance. However, the Respondent successfully appealed this decision to the Appeals Officer.

The Complainant worked on average 4 days per week for the Respondent between rehearsals and gigs. He would send an invoice at the end of every week indicating the number of gigs he played. Apparently, the Complainant had negotiated his rate of pay with the Respondent. He was also free to play with other bands, which he did. He was also able to determine when he was or wasn’t available but he was only not available on 2 occasions.

When the Complainant was not available the Respondent would get someone else and pay that person directly. When the Complainant played with the Respondent, he had to wear the uniform of the band and he had to learn the music in advance. Due to the Covid-19 shut down, the Complainant had not played for the Respondent since March 2020 and he lodged his complainant form with the WRC on 4 March 2022. The Respondent alleged that all the claims were out of time.

Outcome

AO Ms Reidy noted that the relationship between Mr McGranaghan and MEPC Music involved the weekly exchange of money for work as well as the provision of his personal services as the band’s “resident fiddle player” – with substitutes only an “exception”.

There was also sufficient control exercised by the employer to potentially qualify the relationship as employment, she wrote, as Mr McGranaghan had “no flexibility” on when he played with the band, wore a uniform, was told what to play, and took direction from the company.

On this basis, Ms Reidy ruled that Mr McGranaghan could not be a contractor and had been an employee of the company, giving her jurisdiction to rule on the ten employment rights complaints he had lodged. She also found Mr McGranaghan’s dismissal had been unfair and awarded the musician six months’ salary for his losses, a sum of €26,880, for the breach of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977.

The finding was on the basis of an email to Mr McGranaghan on September 22nd 2021 telling the fiddler the company was “no longer using his services” and the company’s stated position that it was “treating him as a contractor and not an employee”.

Practical Guidance
  • Employers need to be extremely careful in terms of who will qualify as an employee under their care, in terms of contracts, hours and reliance.

Continue reading

We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.

Already a subscriber?

Please log in to view the full article.

What you'll get:

  • Help understand the ramifications of each important case from NI, GB and Europe
  • Ensure your organisation's policies and procedures are fully compliant with NI law
  • 24/7 access to all the content in the Legal Island Vault for research case law and HR issues
  • Receive free preliminary advice on workplace issues from the employment team

Already a subscriber? Log in now or start a free trial

Disclaimer The information in this article is provided as part of Legal Island's Employment Law Hub. We regret we are not able to respond to requests for specific legal or HR queries and recommend that professional advice is obtained before relying on information supplied anywhere within this article. This article is correct at 02/04/2025
Legal Island’s LMS, licensed to you Imagine your staff having 24/7 access to a centralised training platform, tailored to your organisation’s brand and staff training needs, with unlimited users. Learn more →