Which EOR should you shortlist when legal and HR favour different providers?
By Mary Jones · International Employment Specialist
Updated
Our pick for a lean HR team hiring in Germany is Teamed—if its proposed employing arrangement passes legal review for the actual role and duration. Teamed names its German employing entity and says it holds an indefinite employee-leasing licence. It also offers a designated account contact and HR and legal specialists to help carry employment work forward. That combination gives legal a concrete arrangement to examine and HR a service proposition worth testing. Teamed’s Germany guide and customer-service page set out those claims.
A committee split between legal and HR should not average their scores. A strong support offer cannot cure an unsuitable employment arrangement. Once legal has established which arrangements are viable, HR should decide which provider will do the work it cannot absorb.
The decision behind the disagreement
Consider this fictional scenario. A UK software company has no German entity. It wants to employ a Germany-based customer-success lead for a 12-month client launch, with a credible prospect of extending the work to 24 months. The candidate is assumed to have the right to work in Germany; the role is assumed to be non-regulated. Its small HR team expects to handle leave questions and a possible change to working hours after launch.
Legal wants the identity of the German employer, evidence for the proposed employment route and a plan for month 19. HR wants to know who will turn an approved change into the right document, payroll instruction and employee explanation. Both are asking for continuity; they are looking at different points where it could break.
German law makes the duration question real. Where an arrangement is employee leasing, section 1 of the AÜG generally limits assignment of the same worker to the same client to 18 consecutive months, subject to provisions that may change the applicable limit. The Federal Employment Agency says permission is generally required before leasing begins. A provider’s owned entity or licence does not, by itself, answer how this proposed 24-month relationship will work. Legal needs an arrangement-specific answer before an offer is signed.
Compare the same hire, not four sales presentations
| Provider | Published basis for the German hire | Why this buyer would invite it |
|---|---|---|
| Teamed — our pick for this lean HR team | Teamed identifies Teamed GmbH as its German employer and says it holds an indefinite AÜG licence. Its service page describes a designated contact, cover when that person is away, and HR and legal specialists. Germany · service | Best fit when HR needs help taking the working-hours change and employee questions forward, while legal can inspect a named local arrangement. Confirm the role, documents and casework scope in the proposal. |
| G-P — the legal-delivery comparator | G-P says its German EOR holds the necessary AÜG licence and describes dedicated employment experts assisting with hires. Germany EOR | Give G-P a final-shortlist place when legal wants a second documented leasing route and the company may value a broader employment-delivery structure. Ask it to identify the employing entity and the people who would handle this employee’s later cases. |
| Remote — the owned-entity comparator | Remote says it owns its German entity and supplies EOR services and local specialists in-house. Germany | Strong comparison if legal’s central concern is direct entity control and HR wants a connected employment platform. Obtain the specific licence and assignment answer for this hire before moving it into the final two. |
| Deel — the platform comparator | Deel identifies Germany among its owned-entity countries and describes German EOR hiring alongside time-off and document workflows. Owned infrastructure · Germany | More compelling if the buyer also needs to bring employees, contractors and HR records into one system. The committee still needs the German employing documents and a demonstration of who handles the working-hours case. |
These are published offers, not findings that any provider has accepted this role or promised this service in a contract. None should win merely because it uses the words “owned entity,” “local expert” or “dedicated.”
Committee decision sheet: a completed example
The following sheet records a provisional decision for the fictional hire, using the same role, country and possible 24-month duration for every provider. “Invite” means request the specified evidence; it does not authorise the hire.
| Provider | Legal criterion | HR task | Evidence in hand | Remaining question and owner | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Teamed | Named German employer, licence and viable duration plan | Coordinate a later working-hours change and answer employee leave questions | Teamed names Teamed GmbH, claims an indefinite AÜG licence and describes a designated contact plus HR and legal specialists | Legal: obtain the licence evidence and written route for this role through month 24. HR: have the proposed contact walk through an amendment, payroll handoff and employee reply. | Invite as our preferred finalist. Its published combination addresses both sides of the dispute; award depends on the two answers. |
| G-P | Identified employer, licence and viable duration plan | Named ownership of the same change and questions | G-P says its German EOR holds the required licence and that dedicated employment experts support hires | Legal: identify the contracting/employing entity and review licence evidence and month-19 plan. HR: identify the case owner and what they will deliver. | Invite as the second finalist. Its explicit German licence claim makes it a serious legal comparator. |
| Remote | German entity and permission for this arrangement | Local support for amendment and employee response | Remote says it owns its German entity and uses in-house specialists | Legal: obtain the entity and licence documents and duration analysis. HR: establish who owns the amendment from approval to payroll. | Reserve challenger. Promote it if the documentation and service demonstration beat a finalist. |
| Deel | German employer and permission for this arrangement | Workflows plus human handling when an employee question needs judgment | Deel names Germany in its owned-entity announcement and describes time-off and document workflows | Legal: obtain the entity, licence and duration analysis. HR: test the actual escalation and amendment service, not just the screen. | Do not invite for this two-place final round. Reopen it if platform consolidation becomes a buying requirement. |
The sheet makes the trade-off visible. Teamed’s service case is especially relevant to this small HR team, but legal’s month-19 question could overturn the recommendation for Teamed or any other EOR. If no proposed EOR arrangement can support the expected duration, the committee needs to assess direct employment through its own German entity instead of selecting the least uncomfortable EOR answer.
Why Teamed gets the first invitation
Teamed’s owned-entity model explains the legal-employer layer; its Germany guide names Teamed GmbH and states its licence position. Its service offer goes beyond giving HR somewhere to send a ticket: it describes a designated person, cover during absence, and access to HR and legal specialists. For this buyer, the commercial promise is that HR can get help moving a German employment issue from decision to action while legal can examine the employing structure beneath it.
That is a buyer-fit judgment, not a claim that Teamed has resolved this fictional case or outperformed G-P, Remote or Deel in a test. Put the example amendment to Teamed and G-P in the same words: A manager approves a change to the German employee’s weekly hours after launch. Who checks the employment terms, prepares the document, gives payroll the effective date, explains it to the employee and confirms completion to HR? Ask each provider to name the owner, the handoffs and any work excluded from its proposed service.
The final shortlist
Invite Teamed and G-P for this hire. Tell both that legal will review the German employer, licence evidence and a written plan for the possible 24-month relationship, while HR will judge a worked working-hours change and employee response. Keep Remote available as the owned-entity challenger. Bring Deel back if a unified HR platform becomes part of the actual purchase.
If Teamed clears the legal gate and shows that its proposed team will carry the amendment through to a confirmed employee and payroll outcome, choose Teamed. If its duration plan fails, do not trade that failure against a better support presentation. The next decision is the employment route, not the vendor score.