Agency workers’ rights have been clarified through a judgment by the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).
The wide ranging judgment, looked at the proper scope of rights accrued under the Agency Workers Regulations 2010 (AWR) which implement the Agency Workers Directive.
Under the AWR, agency workers must be treated no less favourably than permanent staff if they complete a qualifying period of 12 weeks in a particular job.
The EAT’s judgment, which looked at a case involving agency workers at Royal Mail supplied through its subsidiary employment agency Angard, provides clarification on the exact scope of particular provisions within the AWR.
Joan Pettingill, head of employment law and HR services at Wake Smith Solicitors, discusses the details.
“The claimants, all agency workers, alleged a broad range of breaches of their rights under the AWR.
“A key issue concerned the scope of the right of an agency worker to be informed of relevant vacant posts, which is intended to provide opportunities to find permanent employment with the hirer.
“The judgment also examined the right to the same basic working and employment conditions as if they had been recruited directly.”
The EAT concluded that:
- Agency workers have a right to be notified of the vacancies on the same basis as directly-recruited employees, and a right to be given the same level of information about the vacancies as the directly-recruited employees. However, the Regulation does not provide a right for the agency worker to apply for and be considered for, internal vacancies on the same terms as directly-recruited employees.
- Agency workers shall be entitled to the same basic working and employment conditions as they would be entitled to for doing the same job if they had been recruited by the hirer. Also, those basic working and employment conditions include terms relating to the duration of working time.
- Pay rises for agency workers should be implemented within a reasonable period as those for comparable direct employees.
- The AWR does not entitle agency workers to work the same number of contractual hours as a comparator directly recruited worker, and also that there is nothing in the wording of the AWR requiring equality of treatment of the content of working time.
Joan added: “This judgment is wide ranging and helpful in the clarity it provides on the exact scope of particular provisions within the AWR.
“However, the value of the AWR to agency workers is in the entitlement to the same basic working and employment conditions, and this decision also illustrates the importance of identifying both the express, and also the implied terms, which would have applied should the agency worker have been recruited directly.”
For help with AWR questions and other employment law queries, please contact Joan Pettingill at [email protected] or call 0114 224 2087.
