EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS
Worker, employee or neither
Agency relationships
C was supplied by R2 (an employment agency) through R3 (another employment agency) to R1 (a local authority) for whom she worked as a Senior School Travel Planning Officer, fully integrated in R1’s organisation. C’s contract with R2 was described as a contract for services; it did not require her to take any assignment but placed obligations on her to work once she had accepted an assignment. The Tribunal found that R2 was C’s employer within the extended definition in section 68(1) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, that C was a contract worker and R1 her principal within the meaning of section 4B(9) of the 1995 Act.
It was argued that because C was not under an obligation to take the assignment with R1 she was not under an obligation to do work personally and not an employee within the extended definition in section 68(1). Reliance was placed on Mingeley v Pinnock t/a Amber Cars [2004] ICR 727.
Held: The Tribunal was correct. Mingeley distinguished. It was sufficient that C’s obligation to R2 to work personally arose when she accepted the assignment with R1.
Judges:
Richardson J
Citations:
[2012] UKEAT 0590 – 11 – 1304
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 13 October 2022; Ref: scu.454091
