Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.
AIA

No final review for Agency Worker Regulations

by
14th Oct 2011
Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.

The coalition government has confirmed that there will be no final modifications to the Agency Worker Regulations and they will remain unchanged. 

Originally appearing in AccountingWEB sister title HRZone.co.uk, editor Cath Everett reports.

The law, which will entitle temps to equal pay and benefits to permanent staff after they have worked for the same employer for 12 weeks, comes into force from 1 October, and will not differ from when it was laid before Parliament last year, the Telegraph reported.

Speaking to the paper, a spokesman at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills denied that there was yet another “last minute review” taking place within his department in order to assess which elements of the law could be diluted.
The statements came following reports that David Cameron had hired EU law expert Martin Howe QC to seek legal advice on how to go about watering down the legislation. The alleged goal was to remove some of the provisions laid down by the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills when implementing the European directive.
The Prime Minister was said to be concerned about the Regulations’ potentially negative impact on the UK's fragile economy.
A recent survey suggested that nearly 500,000 temps could lose their jobs before Christmas as businesses moved to sack them in order to avoid having to conform to the new law. The legislation is expected to cost employers some £1.8 billion per annum to comply with.
Mark Hammerton, partner at law firm Eversheds, said: “Our advice to hirers and the agencies themselves is not to panic. Many aspects of the Regulations could be clearer, but the UK Government has so far opted to produce guidance rather than change the Regulations themselves.”
While lawyers tended to get excited by some of the “interesting” legal points raised by the legislation, the key commercial issue for employers was to understand where contractual cost and risk lay. “We, therefore, suggest that parties review their commercial contracts (to the extent they have not yet done this”, Hammerton said.
Tags:

You might also be interested in

Replies (2)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

By RedTapeDoc
21st Oct 2011 09:19

Keep a record of established equal treatment.

I recommend that both agencies and their clients keep a record of how they have established equal treatment.

Under the new regulations agency workers are entitled to the same or no less favourable treatment as comparable employees with respect to basic employment and working conditions.

Bear in mind that a comparator only needs to be engaged in broadly similar work, so if there is no comparable employee in the office there may be one in another of the hirer’s workplaces. 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By farnwomt
23rd Oct 2011 00:22

Disasterously Poor Regulations

The primary problem with these regulations is that they are creating vast amounts of red tape in cases where it is completely unnecessary.

It is obvious that the EU set out to protect the rights of those poor downtrodden employees that need their assistance, but the net result in certain sectors, particularly IT consultancy is ludicrous.  Agencies dealing with highly paid IT contractors (typically on two or even three times the rates of the permanent individuals they work with) are sending out hundreds or even thousands of questionnaires to work out the exact working practices of the individual, the client and the company they work through.  This is utter madness, these individuals simply don't need the protection that is being afforded to them and it is counter productive and an expense for everybody concerned.

A good solution would be to rewrite the regulations so that they clearly recognise that individuals are in business on their own account and outside the scope of AWR when they are operating through an Umbrella Company for convenience.  The current situation whereby such individuals are probably outside AWR with a Limited Company but inside AWR if they choose to put their contract through an Umbrella Company is a complete nonsense as it doesn't recognise the commercial reality of the situation.

Thanks (0)