Court of Appeal confirmed that implying a contract of employment between an agency worker and an end-user client is a high threshold and rare in practice. It will only arise where necessary to give business reality to the arrangements; the fact that work has been performed over a long period does not of itself create the necessary implication.
Agency Workers; an agency worker did not become an employee of the prison service despite performing extra duties and long service.
Cited by
Cites
References found in the judgments’ text, with the number of paragraphs in which each case is mentioned. Not a classification: how a case was treated is recorded under Later history.
Agency under the Equality Act; the Court of Appeal held that a parent company managing a group-wide incentive scheme is not automatically the agent of its subsidiary (the employer) under s.109(2) EqA. It also upheld the objective justification of an employment cut-off date for bonuses based on staff retention.
“the EAT was correct to conclude that RB Group was not acting as agent for RB Health when it amended the performance conditions of the LTIP. RB Health is not, therefore, liable for any change made by RB Group to the LTIP pursuant to section 109 of the 2010 Act.”Lewis LJ, at [76]