No need to imply!

by Philip

 Many employers use workers supplied by employment agencies. In a run of cases including Dacas and Franks the Court of Appeal has implied a contract of employment between the end user and the worker. In this case  here the EAT said that there is no need to imply a contract of employment between end user and worker, where a contract of employment exists between worker and agency. Next time your agency is on the phone, it might be an idea to check to see if the agency employs any worker supplied to you.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, January 17th, 2007 at 9:32 am and is filed under Who is an Employee?. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

Similar Posts:

• Triangular worker, agency, end user relationships-those bare necessities!
• Implied contracts take a knock
• Agency Worker as employee?
• Employee or not?
• It’s those bare necessities!