Hot on the heels of the EAT's decision in James v Greenwich Council (see bulletin 22/12/06) comes another decision on agency workers from a differently constituted division of the EAT.
In Craigie v Haringey, Bean J. declines to follow the Court of Appeal's decision in Dacas v Brook Street Bureau on the grounds he preferred to focus on the more traditional 'necessity' test for implying a contract. He upheld a tribunal's decision that there was no 'necessity' to imply a contract of employment between agency worker and end-user.
The EAT commented that the law on agency workers is unsatisfactory, but that it needs legislation to change it (para. 17).
Craigie v Haringey
Thursday, 22 February 2007
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Post a Comment