All items: Agency workers' rights

• expand

  Amissah and others v Trainpeople.co.uk Ltd (dissolved) and another [2017] IRLR 318 EAT (1 report relating to this case)

  • Agency workers: calculating compensation when hirer liable for breach

    Date:

    24 January 2017

    The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has confirmed the correct approach that tribunals should follow when calculating compensation for an infringement of reg.5(1) of the Agency Workers Regulations 2010.

• expand

  Bray and others v Monarch Personnel Refuelling (UK) Ltd ET/1801581/12 and others (1 report relating to this case)

  • Agency workers: employment tribunal provides guidance on "Swedish derogation"

    Date:

    30 January 2013

    This employment tribunal has provided guidance for hirers relying on the "Swedish derogation". 

• expand

  Coles v Ministry of Defence [2015] IRLR 872 EAT (2 reports relating to this case)

  • Agency workers: Agency worker lawfully excluded from redeployment pool that resulted in appointment of permanent employee to post

    Date:

    2 December 2015

    In Coles v Ministry of Defence [2015] IRLR 872 EAT, the EAT held that agency workers are entitled to receive information about vacancies in the end user's undertaking, but this does not extend to a right to be considered for appointment to the post.

  • Employers entitled to favour employees over agency workers for permanent vacancies

    Date:

    3 August 2015

    The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that there is nothing in agency workers laws to prevent employers from choosing permanent members of staff over agency workers for job vacancies.

• expand

  Coles v Ministry of Defence ET/1603792/2013 (1 report relating to this case)

  • Ministry of Defence entitled to redeploy permanent employee in agency worker's role

    Date:

    20 October 2014

    An employment tribunal has found that, while the Agency Workers Regulations 2010 (SI 2010/93) require employers to provide agency workers with information about relevant vacancies, they do not require equality of opportunity during the selection process with internal applicants who are permanent members of staff.

• expand

  Kocur and others v Angard Staffing Solutions Ltd and another (No.2) [2020] IRLR 732 EAT (1 report relating to this case)

  • Agency workers: Worker supplied exclusively to Royal Mail entitled to same conditions as permanent staff

    Date:

    22 July 2020

    In Kocur and others v Angard Staffing Solutions Ltd and another, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that a worker supplied by an agency to work temporarily for Royal Mail was an agency worker, despite the fact that he was supplied exclusively to Royal Mail on a regular basis over four years.

• expand

  Kocur v Angard Staffing Solutions Ltd and another [2018] IRLR 388 EAT (1 report relating to this case)

  • Agency worker's higher pay did not offset inferior holiday entitlement

    Date:

    14 March 2018

    In Kocur v Angard Staffing Solutions Ltd and another, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that a failure to provide an agency worker with the same annual leave entitlement and paid rest breaks as those enjoyed by permanent employees could not be offset by a higher rate of pay.

• expand

  Kocur v Angard Staffing Solutions Ltd and another [2019] IRLR 933 CA (1 report relating to this case)

  • Agency workers: No entitlement to same number of hours as permanent staff

    Date:

    17 July 2019

    In Kocur v Angard Staffing Solutions Ltd and another, the Court of Appeal held that agency workers' entitlement to the "same basic working and employment conditions" as permanent staff after 12 weeks does not extend to being given the same number of hours' work.

• expand

  McTigue v University Hospital Bristol NHS Foundation Trust [2016] IRLR 742 EAT (2 reports relating to this case)

  • Whistleblowing: Whistleblower can be both employee or worker of agency and worker of end user

    Date:

    31 December 2016

    In McTigue v University Hospital Bristol NHS Foundation Trust [2016] IRLR 742 EAT, the EAT held that, in order for a claimant to be a "worker" within the meaning of the extended "whistleblower" definition in s.43K of the Employment Rights Act 1996, all that is required is that the end user substantially determined the terms under which the claimant carried out his or her work. It is not necessary to show that the end user determined those terms to any greater or lesser degree than the agency, of whom the claimant might also be an employee or worker.

  • Agency worker able to bring whistleblowing claim against end user

    Date:

    11 August 2016

    The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that where the terms of an engagement have been substantially determined by both the employer agency and the end user, both are capable of being the individual's employer for the purposes of the whistleblowing legislation.

• expand

  Moran and others v Ideal Cleaning Services Ltd and another [2014] IRLR 172 EAT (2 reports relating to this case)

  • Agency workers: Workers on indefinite assignment did not qualify for protection under Agency Workers Regulations

    Date:

    15 July 2014

    In Moran and others v Ideal Cleaning Services Ltd and another [2014] IRLR 172 EAT, the EAT held that a group of workers employed by an agency had not been placed with the end user on a "temporary" basis within the meaning of the Agency Workers Regulations 2010, such that they did not qualify for protection under reg.5.

  • Workers on contracts of "indefinite duration" were not "temporary" under agency workers legislation

    Date:

    20 December 2013

    The Employment Appeal Tribunal has stressed that workers are afforded protection under the Agency Workers Regulations 2010 (SI 2010/93) only if they are supplied by a temporary work agency to work "temporarily" for the end user.

• expand

  Stevens v Northolt High School ET/3300621/2014 (1 report relating to this case)

  • Agency workers: tribunal finds school underpaid temp by over £10,000

    Date:

    12 September 2014

    The employment tribunal held in this case that the hirer, and not the temporary worker agency, was liable to pay compensation to the agency worker for failure to pay her at the rate she would have been paid had she been directly recruited by the hirer as an employee.