ESM2300 - Agency and temporary workers: continuous contract of employment or individual contract

Temporary or casual workers can pose a particular problem in that there can be two aspects to consider.

»Ê¹ÚÌåÓýapp first is whether a series of engagements with the same engager constitutes an overarching contract of employment (see ESM2320 onwards). »Ê¹ÚÌåÓýappse types of contracts can also commonly be known as continuous or umbrella contracts of employment.

»Ê¹ÚÌåÓýapp second is whether the individual engagements themselves are contracts of employment.

This approach has been accepted by the courts in a number of cases

  • Market Investigations Ltd v Minister of Social Security (see ESM7040)
  • Airfix Footwear Ltd v Cope (see ESM7060)
  • Nethermere (St Neots) Ltd v Gardiner and Taverna (see ESM7110)
  • O’Kelly and Others v Trusthouse Forte plc (see ESM7100)
  • Secretary of State for Employment v McMeechan (see ESM7180)
  • Clark v Oxfordshire Health Authority (see ESM7190)
  • Carmichael and Another v National Power plc (see ESM7200).

Where work is offered and accepted occasionally and irregularly there is unlikely to be an overarching contract of employment. Each engagement will likely be a separate contract of employment or a contract for services depending on the other criteria. This point was covered by Slynn J in 1978

“�.. if the arrangements between a company and a person are such that work may be provided and may be done at the will of either side �.. it may well be that this is not properly to be categorised as a contract of employment. If�.. the company only delivers work sporadically from time to time, and from time to time the worker chooses to do it, so that there is a pattern of an occasional week done a few times during the year, then it might well be that there comes into existence on each of those occasions a separate contract of service, or possibly a contract for services, but that the overriding arrangement is not itself a contract of employment, either of service or for services.�

[Airfix Footwear Limited v Cope (see ESM7060)]

»Ê¹ÚÌåÓýapp above demonstrates that in a case involving a series of irregular and short term engagements each of those engagements may represent an employment - even though there is no overall and continuing contract of employment.