When is a Temp Not a Temp? The Latest Case on the Agency Workers Regulations

The case itself involved a group of claimants who were employed by Ideal and supplied to Celanese and its predecessor company, for many years (since 1987 for one claimant). When they were made redundant in 2012 they brought claims under the AWR in an employment tribunal (ET).

At a preliminary hearing, the ET had to decide whether Ideal was in fact a temporary work agency under the AWR and this led to an analysis of whether the claimants came within the AWR definition of an agency worker

The ET examined what was meant by the word ‘temporary’ and in the absence of any definition in the AWR, it simply applied the ordinary dictionary definition - i.e. temporary
means ‘not permanent; provisional’ or ‘lasting only a short time.’ The ET’s decision was that the claimants:

“all had contracts of indefinite duration with Ideal whereby they had all been placed long-term at Celanese. It follows that I must find, and this is really the be all and end all of it, that the Claimants were not agency workers as defined in Regulation 3 because they were not supplied to work temporarily.”

The EAT has now upheld this decision.

This decision highlights the fact that the Agency Worker Regulations do not provide protection to individuals merely because they are engaged by one party to work under the supervision and direction of another. They must be supplied ‘temporarily’ and not permanently to come within the scope of the AWR.

For more on the impact of this decision and other legal news REC members can read the latest REC legal bulletin.