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

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

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll