AWD implementation regulations published
Agency Workers Regulations, which implement the Agency Workers Directive, have now been published.
The first public view of the regulations have now been uploaded to the Office of Public Sector Information (OPSI) website.
The Regulations confirm that implementation will not begin until after 1 October 2011.
Following two consultations on the directive’s implementation, the government’s response to consultation confirms that:
- Agency workers placed with an end-user for 12 weeks or more will be entitled to the terms and conditions that would have applied if they been recruited as permanent employees. They will also be entitled to the same terms and conditions as comparable permanent employees.
- Eligible agency workers will be entitled to equal treatment in terms of “working time” provisions, such as holiday and rest breaks, as well as ‘pay’.
- ‘Pay’ now has a wider definition than proposed in the draft Regulations. While occupational benefits such as pension contributions, sick pay and maternity pay will not amount to pay, some bonuses that relate directly to the quality or quantity of work performed will need to be extended to agency workers.
- Breaks of less than six weeks between assignments will not reset the 12 week qualifying period. The Regulations also introduces a new anti-avoidance provision. If it appears that assignments have been structured in a particular way to try and stop an agency worker from acquiring rights under the Regulations, an award of up to £5,000 may be payable.
- Agencies will be liable for claims if an agency worker has not received equal treatment. However, liability could move to the end user if it has not supplied the agency information about the relevant working and employment conditions.
But Frances Lewis, consultant and head of Osborne Clarke’s recruitment sector, told Recruiter that its too early to begin planning for the legislation. “It is still early days. Quite a lot could happen between now and October 2011. There might be a new government.
“They are yet to publish the guidance that goes with the regulations so it is too early to start planning. We don’t know enough about how this is going to pan out. I am fairly confident there will be changes in the legislation or the guidance.
“There are a quite a number of changes from the intial draft that were not consulted upon. The anti-avoidance mechanism to make it more difficult for users and supppliers to get around the 12-week qualifying period are actually quite complicated. Guidance will have to be provided and there will be an opportunity for the industry to have input on the guidance.”










Readers' comments (2)
Nursing Agency Manager | Mon, 25 Jan 2010 2:10 pm
So if an agency nurse works at a private hospital for one day (let's say Wednesday), then again on the following Tuesday, has she worked there for two days or a week?
If that hospital offers its staff five weeks holiday but the nurse also regularly works for another hospital that offers four weeks holiday, how do we go about making sure the nurse gets the right amount of paid leave during the year? Can any software cope with this sort of complexity?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Tania, IT consultant | Mon, 25 Jan 2010 7:05 pm
If you use an PAYE Ltd company (umbrella service) that already provides its employees with enhanced employment benefits and monitors holidays and HR issues, then surely the end clients are not seen as the employer. Employment already exists, all employee rights are in place and any inclusion in end clients employment rights can opted out.
This regulation is to help protect uninformed temps that are abused without protection.
Regulated accountants Danbro, who specialise in contractor accounting, provide me with all employee benefits plus extras if I want them. I am their employee as such even if the AWD comes down hard; any end client that employs my service has nothing to worry about. My advice is to engage a company like Danbro to look after the employment rights of the temps; they are free to end users and agencies, and only make a small fee everytime they process my pay. Why try to avoid this or work around it better to have employee benefits for all and protect the vulnerable workers.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment