Cloisters barristers Adam Ohringer and Nathaniel Caiden succeeded with their argument about the scope of the Agency Worker Regulations 2010 in the case of Angard & Royal Mail v Kocur (UKEAT/0050/20/JOJ).  The EAT confirmed that agency workers remain agency workers even if they provide regular work to one end-user over many years.  The question in every case is whether the worker is supplied to the end-user on a temporary (and not indefinite) basis.

 

In this case the claimants were employed by Angard and supplied to work shifts Royal Mail sorting offices as and when required as temporary cover for Royal Mail’s employees.  They were usually offered shifts on a week-by-week basis.  The Claimants alleged that they were retained on terms and conditions which were less favourable than those of Royal Mail’s direct employees, in breach of the Agency Worker Regulations 2010.    

 

Angard and Royal Mail argued that the Claimants could not proceed under the Regulations because they were not agency workers as they only worked for Royal Mail and the work was regular.  It was contended that this contrasted with the typical agency relationship and took them outside the scope of the Regulations.  After the Employment Tribunal ruled against them, Angard and Royal Mail appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal.  On 10 July 2020 HHJ Auerbach handed down a Judgment upholding the Tribunal’s decision.

 

The case will continue with a substantive hearing of the claim in the Leeds Employment Tribunal on 22 September to 1 October 2020.

 

Nathaniel Caiden represented Mr Kocur through the Direct Public Access scheme

 

Adam Ohringer represented 67 other claimants and was instructed by Shazia Khan at Irwin Mitchell