EAT Jurisdictional Points : Agency Relationships – The Appellants were employed for many years by the first Respondent but placed to work as agency workers at the premises, and under the supervision, of the second Respondent or its predecessor. They sought to argue that they qualified for protection under the Agency Workers Regulations 2010. They contended first that the Employment Tribunal had misconstrued the word ‘temporary’ in the Regulations to mean ‘short term’ rather than ‘not permanent.’ They also contended that, in any event, all agency workers who meet a 12 week qualification period fall within the scope of the Regulations and that this interpretation was required in order to give effect to Directive 2008/104/EC.
Held, (1) The Employment Tribunal had not erred in its interpretation of ‘temporary’ and had correctly understood it to mean ‘not permanent.’ It had been entitled on the evidence before it to conclude that the Appellants were all placed permanently with the second Respondent and were not temporary agency workers.
(2) The Appellants’ submission that all agency workers who meet the 12 week qualification period fall within the scope of the Regulations was wrong because it would give no meaning or effect to the word ‘temporary’ at all. Far from giving effect to the purpose of the underlying Directive, that approach would be contrary to that purpose.
Singh J
[2013] UKEAT 0274 – 13 – 0312, [2013] UKEAT 0274 – 13 – 1312
Bailii, Bailii
Directive 2008/104/EC, Agency Workers Regulations 2010
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 28 November 2021; Ref: scu.520039
