Beck v London Borough of Camden and another EAT/0121/08

employment status | agency worker

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), applying the Court of Appeal decision in James v London Borough of Greenwich, has held that an agency worker was not an employee of an end user.

The London Borough of Camden uses agency workers to provide a home care service to residents who need special assistance. Mrs Beck began working for the London Borough of Camden in October 1999. After a few weeks, her work was praised and she was given her own rota. She continued working for the Borough until February 2006, when she applied for a new position. A criminal record check revealed a police caution for assault and Mrs Beck was told that she would no longer be able to work for the it. She brought claims for unfair dismissal and breach of contract.

In a judgment given in May 2007, an employment tribunal found that Mrs Beck's claims could not proceed, as she was not an employee of the London Borough of Camden. Her appeal against the decision was stayed pending the outcome of the Court of Appeal decision in James v London Borough of Greenwich [2008] IRLR 302 CA, which was given in February 2008.

The EAT found that the tribunal was entitled to find that there was a genuine agency arrangement. In James, the Court of Appeal said that employment tribunals should imply a contract of employment between an agency worker and an end user only on the grounds of necessity (for example, in order to expose sham arrangements). There should be very limited scope for successful appeals where the correct test of necessity has been applied by an employment tribunal, as it was in this case.

Case transcript of Beck v London Borough of Camden and another (Microsoft Word format, 55K) (on the EAT website)

Go to HR & Compliance Centre case law stop press.