Triangular worker, agency, end user relationships-those bare necessities!
by Philip
Whether a worker supplied by an employment agency can become an employee of the end user is one of employment law’s hot topics.
In this case there was an employment agency. That employment agency had a contract for services with a worker. The employment agency also had a contract for services with an end user. End user is an ugly description, but that’s what users of employment agencies are now being called in Tribunals. Hey I guess most end users would rather be called that than employer.
The agency had a contract to supply labour to the end user.
Contract law is relatively straightforward. There cannot be an implied term if there is already an express term that covers the same point. An implied term will only be implied out of necessity, in the absence of an express term. It is this necessity factor that is likely to impale most claims for implied employment status. The necessity for most end users in contracting with employment agencies is to avoid employment status. There is therefore no necessity to imply an employee contract! Particularly in cases where there is an express contract between the worker and the agency.
In this case, as there was an express contract between agency and worker there was no necessity to imply a contract between worker and end user.
In this case therefore the worker was not employed either by the agency or the end user and had no right to claim unfair dismissal as that was contingent on being an employee.
Similar Posts: