BIFAlink


Legal Eagle


www.bifa.org


against both Angard and Royal Mail. At a preliminary hearing the tribunal had to


decide whether the claimants were ‘agency workers’ within the meaning of the AWR 2010. The lead claimant, Mr Kocur, had been supplied to work for Royal Mail for over four years since January 2015. The respondents argued that the claimants


were not agency workers under the AWR 2010 as they were not supplied to “work temporarily for” Royal Mail. The tribunal disagreed, finding that the supply of the claimants was temporary and therefore the AWR 2010 did apply. The tribunal held that the work was carried out under a series of assignments, each for a defined period. The respondents appealed to the EAT.


EAT decision The EAT has dismissed the appeal, upholding the tribunal’s finding that the claimants are agency workers under the AWR 2010. The tribunal was correct to focus on the basis


on which the worker is supplied to the end user, not whether the overarching relationship between the agency and the worker is temporary. The contractual documentation and communications between the agency and the worker will be relevant to the tribunal’s overall assessment of the facts, but are not necessarily determinative. The fact that each assignment was for a


defined period by reference to a particular shift or shifts, meant that Mr Kocur was supplied to work “temporarily” for Royal Mail and was therefore an agency worker.


Do you employ agency workers?


BIFA spotted this article in Birketts’ Employment and Immigration Law Update (30 July 2020) and urges Members to understand the definition of agency worker and their responsibilities under the Agency Workers Regulations 2010


Angard Staffing Solutions Ltd v Kocur and others [2020] UKEAT/0050/20 In this case the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) considered whether workers supplied on a long-term basis to a single end-user were ‘agency workers’ for the purposes of the Agency Workers Regulations (AWR) 2010.


14


Facts The claimants in this case were employed by the respondent (Angard, a company in the Royal Mail group) and supplied on a flexible basis to its sole client, Royal Mail. As part of a long-running dispute involving various claims under the AWR 2010, the claimants brought further claims


Consequences This case is likely to be helpful for agency workers to establish a potential claim under the AWR 2010, even if they have been supplied for a long period to a single end-user client. It will be harder for the agency and the end-user to defend a claim on the basis that the supply was not temporary, although a tribunal will look closely at the arrangements in place and the nature of the assignments in each case. It was significant here that the flexibility of the arrangements and the fact that each assignment had an express end date, were sufficient for the tribunal to conclude it was temporary in nature.


The content of this article is for general information only. It is not, and should not be taken as, legal advice. If you require any further information you should seek the advice of a qualified professional. Law covered as at July 2020.


BIFA would like to thank Associate Member Birketts.co.uk for this article.


October 2020


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24