header-logo header-logo

14 September 2011
Issue: 7481 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Employers pre-empt new agency rules

Employers are terminating agency worker contracts ahead of new equal treatment rules, a City law firm has warned.

As of 1 October 2011, agency workers will qualify for equal treatment to permanent employees in relation to pay and benefits after 12 weeks.

According to a report by Allen & Overy, Changes to Temporary Workers, up to half a million temporary contracts could be under threat as a result.

The firm’s research among 200 medium to large UK businesses found that a third may be planning to avoid increased costs by terminating contracts before the 12-week qualifying period kicks in. It estimates the new rules, which implement the European Temporary Workers Directive, will cost UK business about £1.3bn per year (between £1,755 and £3,722 per worker).

It found that a quarter of employers did not know how much the new rules would cost their business; one in five bonus-paying companies faced an increase to their annual bonus pool of between five and 15%; and a third hadn’t yet considered the issue of auto-enrolment of agency workers into pension schemes.

Allen & Overy employment partner Stefan Martin said: “The advantages of using a flexible workforce during the current economic climate will be compromised as employers feel the burden of additional rules and regulations. While businesses will undoubtedly continue to use agency workers, this will result in increased costs. Rather than strengthening their rights, this may actually make the position of agency workers much more uncertain, exposing them to early termination of contracts.

“Users of agency workers need to assess how they are going to manage their temporary workforce going forward and should review their contracts with agencies to minimise the scope for agencies to simply pass on increased costs to business.”

Issue: 7481 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll