Employers are not legally obliged to recruit agency workers in preference to others, nor are they prevented from redeploying permanent staff into vacant positions in preference to recruiting agency workers.
Coles v Ministry of Defence
The concept of ‘temporary’ in the Agency Workers Regulations 2010 (AWR) means ‘not permanent’ - so a group of agency workers supplied as cleaners for a considerable length of time did not benefit from the protection of the regulations.
Moran v Ideal Cleaning Services Ltd
A local authority broke the law when, during consultation on a redundancy exercise and two TUPE transfers, it failed to provide enough information to unions on the agency workers it used. This resulted in it having to pay significant protective awards to affected employees (although see Update note below).
Unison v London Borough of Barnet
There was no contract of employment between an agency worker and an employment agency where the agreement between them showed no intention to create an employment relationship and there was a lack of control and mutuality of obligation.
Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills v Studders
A contract of employment should not be implied where the contractual arrangements in place adequately explain the working relationship between an agency worker and the end user. A significant degree of integration of an agency worker into an organisation is not inconsistent with an agency relationship in which there is no contract between a worker and the end user. When considering whether a contract of employment should be implied into the relationship between parties, their understanding that there is no contract in place between them, whilst not decisive, is a powerful factor against such an implication.
Tilson v Alstom Transport
The Court of Appeal held that an agency worker was not an employee of the end user, and nor was he an employee of the end user under the wider meaning in anti-discrimination law.
Muschett v HM Prison Service
|Page 1 of 2|