Many employers were concerned when in the 2004 case of Dacas v Brook Street the Court of Appeal implied an employment contract between an agency worker and an end-user company. This meant that if working for the end-user for more than a year, the worker could bring an unfair dismissal claim when the arrangement came to an end.
This issue was revisited this month in the EAT case of Cairns v Visteon Ltd which held that, on the facts no contract existed between the worker and the end-user.
In Dacas, the worker had had no contract of employment with the employment agency so the Court had implied one with the end-user to give her statutory protection against unfair dismissal. In the present case, Mr Cairns had a contract with the agency. It was reasonable not to imply contract of employment with the end-user as Mr Cairns could already claim unfair dismissal against the agency.
This decision will therefore throw a life-line to employers who regularly employ agency workers for extended periods if they first make sure there are adequate contracts between the workers and the agencies.
See my firm website:
www.reculversolicitors.co.uk or
www.compromise-agreement.net
No comments:
Post a Comment