Employment Lawyers: Court of Appeal Rules on the Employment Status of Agency Workers

Under the Employment Rights Act 1996, protection against unfair dismissal is only afforded to employees. For this reason, the exact employment status of an agency worker is often at issue in the courts.

The Court of Appeal has handed down its judgment in James v Greenwich Council, which dealt with the employment status of a worker involved in a triangular agency relationship. A number of similar cases had been put on hold pending this decision and it was hoped that it would give guidance on what many see as conflicting authorities on this issue. However, the Court of Appeal saw no conflict in the earlier decisions and upheld the ruling of the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) that the agency worker in this case was not the employee of the end user.

Ms James worked full time for Greenwich Council until 1997, providing support work in the Council’s Asylum Seeker’s Team. She stopped working for a while, but then started working for the Council again through an employment agency.

In 2003, she switched to an agency which paid a better hourly rate. There was no contract directly between Ms James and the Council. However, she had signed a ‘Temporary Worker Agreement’, which set out the terms of her agreement with the agency. This provided, amongst other things, that she contracted with the agency in the capacity of a self-employed worker in relation to each assignment and that the terms constituted a contract of services and would not give rise to a contract of employment either between the agency and the temporary worker or between the worker and the client. A second agreement, made between the agency and the Council, provided that the worker would be under the supervision, direction and control of the Council but that the agency assumed responsibility for the worker’s remuneration and for the deduction and payment of PAYE and NICs.

Ms James was off sick in August and most of September 2004 and was replaced by another agency worker in her absence. When she returned to work, she was told she was no longer required.

Ms James claimed that she had been unfairly dismissed, arguing that she had an implied contract of employment, given that she had worked for the Council for a number of years and had been treated in the same way as a permanent employee.

The Employment Tribunal (ET) found that there was no contractual obligation between the Council and Ms James and that there was no implied contract of employment. She could not therefore claim unfair dismissal. The EAT upheld the ET’s decision on the ground that Ms James’s appeal raised no question of law. She did not have an implied contract with the Council as no mutuality of obligation existed. In reaching its conclusion, the EAT observed that the mere passage of time was not sufficient to establish any mutual undertaking of legal obligations between the worker and end user. The Court of Appeal agreed and dismissed Ms James’s appeal. A contract of employment between an end user and an agency worker should only be implied where this is necessary to give business reality to the relationship between the parties. This was not necessary in this case as the work done could be explained by the existing contracts.

The Court went on to say that the courts and tribunals are ‘builders of the law’, not ‘architects of economic and social policy’ and must ‘operate within the legal architecture created by others’. Unless Parliament decides to change the current law, Tribunals must continue to apply the principles of the law of contract to the wide spectrum of factual situations that arise.

Pinder Reaux & Associates

Business Services News

Read Next


What people say

"We shall, no doubt, be engaging you again soon"

"The matter was concluded very successfully and I’d like to thank John and Wilson again for their helpful and highly professional work earlier this year."

Alex Bailey, Trichromic LLP'

"Great Source of Support"

"You have essentially achieved what we had set out to do. Thank you for all of your assistance in this matter. Throughout this ordeal, you have been a great source of support."

Mary Anne Poutanen, Canada

"I could not have chosen a better firm to represent me."

"You provided the key essentials (and more) for client satisfaction. I am extremely pleased with the services provided by your company and the legal team provided for me. To also turnaround my situation making it a positive outcome, I could not have chosen a better firm to represent me."

Marvyn Smith, London

"I would recomend this service to anyone who has a legal matter"

"I'm so glad I had this advice before my CMD. I was very much prepared and think my company (whom I'm taking to a tribunal) were shocked at my knowledge. I would recommend this service to anyone who has a legal matter."

Jacqueline Stevenson, Bristol

"Can’t wait for another session!"

"John Spyrou kindly offered to provide our publishing firm with an update on libel and defamation law. Those who attended - a mix of veteran editors and those new to the world of journalism - all said how practical and useful they found the training – and now can’t wait for another session!"

Paul Snell, Redactive Media Group

"Highly recommended"

"Alana & Pinder Reaux’s level of service has been exceptionally high. Always keen to help out with the work in an efficient manner. Highly recommended."

Trading Point of Financial Instruments UK Ltd

"Fast and Reliable"

"Fast and reliable notary service for notarisation/legalisation of College reports for foreign office and embassies."

Student Services Department, CATS College London

"One step ahead of the opposition"

"'John Spyrou has the ability to pre-empty arguments and see issues before they arise, thereby allowing him to be one step ahead of the opposition’"

Christopher Bovey, Angelbird Technologies GmbH