The Employment Tribunal found that the lead Claimant before it, Mr Kocur, was an agency worker within the meaning of Regulation 3 Agency Worker Regulations 2010. An appeal against that decision was dismissed.
The issue turned on whether, pursuant to Regulation 3(1)(a), Mr Kocur was ‘supplied’ by the agency – Angard – to ‘work temporarily’ for the hirer – Royal Mail. The Tribunal had correctly directed itself in accordance with Moran v Ideal Cleaning Services Limited [2014] IRLR 172 that ‘temporary’ meant ‘not permanent’. Having found as a fact that each and every assignment was for a defined period by reference to a particular shift or shifts, it properly concluded that Mr Kocur was supplied to work temporarily. It properly considered that this conclusion was not affected by the fact that Mr Kocur’s contract with Angard was open-ended, nor by the fact that he was exclusively supplied to Royal Mail, nor by the fact that he had been regularly and repeatedly supplied in this way over the course of a period of some four years.
A cross-appeal, to the effect that the Tribunal erred by not proactively considering and determining whether it was an abuse of process for Royal Mail and Angard to have sought to dispute Mr Kocur’s status as an agency worker at all, was also dismissed. However, as the appeal had failed on its merits, the Tribunal’s decision in any event stood.
[2020] UKEAT 0050 – 20 – 1007
Bailii
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 12 November 2021; Ref: scu.653273