The Recruitment & Employment Confederation (REC) has welcomed last week’s Court of Appeal judgment in favour of Brook Street in the Dacas v. Brook Street case. The case, in which Brook Street was supported by the REC on behalf of its members, has a number of implications for the UK recruitment industry as well as for individual temporary workers on long-term assignments.
The Court ruled that case questioned whether the Employment Appeal Tribunal were was wrong to conclude that a temporary worker, Mrs Dacas, was an employee of Brook Street when she was engaged by Brook Street under a contract for services, and dismissed after five years of working for Wandsworth Council as a cleaner., was an employee of Brook Street
The Court of Appeal had no great difficulty in concluding that Mrs. Dacas was not an employee of Brook Street, as Brook Street was under no obligation to provide Mrs. Dacas with work and she was under no obligation to accept work offered. Further, Brook Street exercised little relevant day-to-day control over her work. Accordingly, she was
not an employee of Brook Street. This case is extremely helpful as it provides support for the view that employment agencies, using properly drawn terms and conditions (akin to the REC professional standards) do not in the eyes of the law employ workers whom they place to work under the control of clients.
The court’s judgment does, however, indicate that a temporary worker may acquire employment protection rights as a result of an implied contract of employment following a certain length of service with one employer (e.g. a period of 12 months or more). This has potential implications for the way temporary work arrangements are managed in the future as clients may be more inclined to offer permanent placements if the period they have worked would entitle them to the same employment rights anyway. All three judges agreed that these implied rights could only be enforced against the hiring company and not against the agency supplying the temporary worker.
The judgment may have a number of implications for the way temporary work arrangements are managed. For example , the length of time that temporary workers are provided to clients may be affected, as companies will perhaps be more inclined to take temp staff on permanently if the period they have worked would entitle them to the same employment rights anyway.
Commenting on the case, Gareth Osborne, Managing Director of the REC, said: This is a very important judgement for the temporary work industry. It confirms that that the standard terms developed by the REC and used by most our member temporary recruitment agencies (in this case by Brook Street) are legitimate and enforceable and do not give rise to a contract of employment between the agency and the temporary worker. It was vital to get some clarity on this area and the REC will be working hard to ensure that members are made aware of the practical implications.
Dacas v. Brook Street Judgement
.