Agency Workers Regulations Query
Discussion
Im after a bit of advice, ideally from someone who may have been involved with implementing the regulations from 1st Oct 2011 regarding equal treatment.
The company I work for offer more holiday as standard than I am currently allocated from my agency (33 days vs statutory minimum of 28). The employer is claiming that my comparator salary is lower than my current rate and as such there is no change to my pay/holiday entitlement. Is this an allowable interpretation? If it makes a difference, I have been told im allowed 33 days leave but will only be paid for 28.
The company I work for offer more holiday as standard than I am currently allocated from my agency (33 days vs statutory minimum of 28). The employer is claiming that my comparator salary is lower than my current rate and as such there is no change to my pay/holiday entitlement. Is this an allowable interpretation? If it makes a difference, I have been told im allowed 33 days leave but will only be paid for 28.
I think the holiday comparison is separate to pay and as such should be treated so. The only way you wouldn’t be entitled to the extra days would be if:
1. The days above 28 were in recognition of years service
2. The extra days had been ‘traded’ against salary (explaining why theirs would be lower than yours)
3. The role is not comparable
The best way to look at it is if the hirer offered you a permanent contract tomorrow what would they offer in light of annual leave? If it’s 28 days (and you earn the rest) then they are right; however, anything else is what you should receive.
1. The days above 28 were in recognition of years service
2. The extra days had been ‘traded’ against salary (explaining why theirs would be lower than yours)
3. The role is not comparable
The best way to look at it is if the hirer offered you a permanent contract tomorrow what would they offer in light of annual leave? If it’s 28 days (and you earn the rest) then they are right; however, anything else is what you should receive.
I would tend to agree with VXr8 although IM pretty sure from my reading of the statutes that it is unclear and does not go into specific scenarios like this.
Its effectively says that terms must be equal including pay/terms/leave (plus other bits and pieces).
To my knowledge (ive skimmed most of it) it does not make any kind of provision for weighing off one right against another or cumulating them etc and the wording suggests they have to be met seperately.
Unfortunately its not that clear cut and it will take people to start taking cases to tribunal for the answers to this type of question so it depends whether you can be bothered.
In your shoes I wouldn't if your cumulitive slary/leave equates to that of the direct employees unless you have a pretty good long-term contract as the hassle/bad feeling/potential loss of contract outweight the benefit.
Its effectively says that terms must be equal including pay/terms/leave (plus other bits and pieces).
To my knowledge (ive skimmed most of it) it does not make any kind of provision for weighing off one right against another or cumulating them etc and the wording suggests they have to be met seperately.
Unfortunately its not that clear cut and it will take people to start taking cases to tribunal for the answers to this type of question so it depends whether you can be bothered.
In your shoes I wouldn't if your cumulitive slary/leave equates to that of the direct employees unless you have a pretty good long-term contract as the hassle/bad feeling/potential loss of contract outweight the benefit.
Thanks for the comments.
I could question where this comparison has come from, as I believe im the only person doing this job and Ive been there 8 years so have a fairly good idea! They also seem to be basing it on a starting rate, and after doing it so long I really dont think thats suitable either.
It does seem like you both agree with me but I can not find any specific examples. I probably dont want to go to tribunal as its not going to bode well for work after that! Maybe if some cases do get there a precedence can be set and I can get it backdated. Well see, Ill definitely give it a bit more of a push though.
Edit: All company employees do start with 33 days holiday to begin with.
I could question where this comparison has come from, as I believe im the only person doing this job and Ive been there 8 years so have a fairly good idea! They also seem to be basing it on a starting rate, and after doing it so long I really dont think thats suitable either.
It does seem like you both agree with me but I can not find any specific examples. I probably dont want to go to tribunal as its not going to bode well for work after that! Maybe if some cases do get there a precedence can be set and I can get it backdated. Well see, Ill definitely give it a bit more of a push though.
Edit: All company employees do start with 33 days holiday to begin with.
PulsatingStar said:
Thanks for the comments.
I could question where this comparison has come from, as I believe im the only person doing this job and Ive been there 8 years so have a fairly good idea! They also seem to be basing it on a starting rate, and after doing it so long I really dont think thats suitable either.
It does seem like you both agree with me but I can not find any specific examples. I probably dont want to go to tribunal as its not going to bode well for work after that! Maybe if some cases do get there a precedence can be set and I can get it backdated. Well see, Ill definitely give it a bit more of a push though.
Edit: All company employees do start with 33 days holiday to begin with.
It's up to your agency to establish these deatils with the hirer, not you.I could question where this comparison has come from, as I believe im the only person doing this job and Ive been there 8 years so have a fairly good idea! They also seem to be basing it on a starting rate, and after doing it so long I really dont think thats suitable either.
It does seem like you both agree with me but I can not find any specific examples. I probably dont want to go to tribunal as its not going to bode well for work after that! Maybe if some cases do get there a precedence can be set and I can get it backdated. Well see, Ill definitely give it a bit more of a push though.
Edit: All company employees do start with 33 days holiday to begin with.
PulsatingStar said:
Thanks for the comments.
I probably dont want to go to tribunal as its not going to bode well for work after that! Maybe if some cases do get there a precedence can be set and I can get it backdated. Well see, Ill definitely give it a bit more of a push though.
Edit: All company employees do start with 33 days holiday to begin with.
I agree with this approach entirely.I probably dont want to go to tribunal as its not going to bode well for work after that! Maybe if some cases do get there a precedence can be set and I can get it backdated. Well see, Ill definitely give it a bit more of a push though.
Edit: All company employees do start with 33 days holiday to begin with.
It will take a tribunal to determine the specifics about this and in the meantime you could see your missed holiday as a savings scheme or otherwise.
You could definitely rock the boat with both the client and the agency if you start making waves now and its probably not worth it.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff