|
February '03
A recent decision by the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) could have significant implications for all agencies placing PAYE temporary workers with clients. The EAT held that a Temp who had worked as a cleaner for a hostel through the agency Brook Street was an employee of Brook Street and was therefore entitled to pursue a claim against them for unfair dismissal.
Temps assigned by an agency to work for a client are not usually considered employees of either the agency or the client. As a result temps do not have full employment rights such as the right not to be unfairly dismissed, to maternity and parental leave, to redundancy payments, to statutory notice nor to any new rights to be introduced under the Employment Act 2002.
Although the temp’s contract said that she was not an employee of Brook Street or the client, and that she was to work under the control of the client, the Court determined, as a matter of fact, that she was an employee of Brook Street. The legal arguments involved are quite complicated but the result is that all temp agencies should review their contract terms and procedures to minimise exposure to employer obligations in respect of their temps as there could be serious cost and administrative implications.
Although it is understood that the judgment is being appealed it must be borne in mind that the judgment was passed by the president of the EAT, Justice Burton, who was also the presiding judge in the PCG Judicial Review. As such he is highly respected and this is clearly an authoritative decision.
For further information or to assess your potential liability to such claims please contact Lawspeed on 01273 236236 or by email to info@lawspeed.com.
To be kept up to date with this and other current issues which have an effect on your company and industry register for Agencyzone, Lawspeed’s free newsletter service.
|