Worker Status and Zero Hours Contract
Friday 7th September 2018
In the recent case of Brooknight Guarding Ltd v Matei, the EAT held that Mr Matei was an agency worker and was therefore entitled to the same basic working conditions as the security officers employed by the end user clients of the security company Brooknight.
Brooknight supplies security guards on what are described as ‘zero-hour contracts’ to guard premises at a variety of sites in London. The majority of which, including Mr Matei was engaged on a zero hours contract, he was supplied to Mitie to provide specific cover and was therefore a temporary agency worker as defined by Regulation 4 of Agency Worker Regulations 2010.
Comment
This case serves as a reminder that when considering if a worker is an ‘agency worker’ a Tribunal’s decision will depend on the individual facts a hand and not solely the contractual terms. The key factors in deciding will be if the nature and purpose of the work is temporary or permeant.
