A security guard on a zero hours contract and supplied mainly to one client for 21 months was held to be an agency worker entitled to rights under the Agency Workers Regulations 2010. The EAT upheld the tribunal's view that he was supplied to work 'temporarily' for a hirer as required under the Regulations, given that the nature of the work was to provide security 'cover' on a 'required only basis' and not an indefinite assignment to carry out particular ongoing work. It was also relevant that the contract gave the agency complete flexibility to assign him to different hirers. (Brooknight Guarding Ltd v Matei)
Key contacts
Steve Bell
Managing Partner - Employment, Industrial Relations and Safety (Australia, Asia), Melbourne
Emma Rohsler
Regional Head of Practice (EMEA) - Employment Pensions and Incentives, Paris
Disclaimer
The articles published on this website, current at the dates of publication set out above, are for reference purposes only. They do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Specific legal advice about your specific circumstances should always be sought separately before taking any action.