In James v Greenwich Council the EAT held that a it was entitled to find that an agency worker supplied to the Council for some five years was not an employee of the Council though had been treated in all other respects as one.
The Eat gave useful guidelines on when you could infer an implied contract of employment between a casual worker and an end user (client business).
It also rejected a suggestion in Dacas v Brook Street Bureau (UK) Limited that the passage of time could lead to an inference of a contract of employment between an agency worker and an end user.
The James case therefore has given welcome relief and comfort to clients of long-term agency workers who feared they might be construed as the employer. In most situations it will be the agency and not the client who will be the employer of the staff concerned.
Of interest were the EAT’s comments that agency workers were highly vulnerable to abuse to end users and consequently legislative protection could be necessary. A Private Members’ Bill is expected 2 March 2007 though opposition will be firm.
