header-logo header-logo

07 June 2007 / David Malamatenios
Issue: 7276 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Agents of change

Recent EAT decisions have accelerated changes to the legal status of agency workers, says David Malamatenios

You might be excused for having a feeling of déjà vu when first reading this article, because this is the latest in a series of articles which attempt to make sense of the employment status of agency workers. In that case, you might fairly ask, what is the point of this article? Well, the situation has at last started to become clearer (for employers at least) as a consequence of two recent decisions of the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in Astbury v Gist [2007] All ER (D) 480 (Mar) and Heatherwood and Wexham Park Hospitals NHS Trust v Kulubowila [2007] All ER (D) 496 (Mar), both of which were published on 28 March 2007.

AGENCY WORKERS

There is no point telling you what’s new without first telling you what’s old and how the law has come to be so confused on this issue.
The problem of agency workers is an old one. An agency worker works under a tri-partite agreement, which works as follows:
- There will be a contract

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll