The EAT has held that an agency worker was entitled to
whistleblowing protection against an end-user as she was a
"worker" under the extended definition in section 43K of
the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The extended definition of "worker" applies only to
the whistleblowing provisions of the ERA 1996. It was included to
protect agency workers and was specifically intended to provide
whistleblowing protection for health workers in England, Scotland
and Wales, where the NHS has contractual arrangements in place that
mean such workers do not fall within the standard definition of
"worker" under section 230(3) of the ERA 1996.
Section 43K(2) of the ERA 1996 provides that in respect of an
agency worker, the "employer" includes "the person
who substantially determines or determined the terms on which he is
or was engaged..."
Ms McTigue was employed by an agency, TMS Ltd (TMS), and was
assigned to work as a nurse for the University Hospital Bristol NHS
Foundation Trust (the Trust) in a sexual assault referral centre.
She had a written employment contract with TMS on their standard
terms. She was also subject to the Trust's standard contract
which required her to cooperate with the Trust in relation to
health and safety, clinical governance and working time and also
identified the supervisor under whom she would work.
Ms McTigue was removed from the assignment in December 2013 and
brought whistleblowing claims against TMS and the Trust in relation
to the protected disclosures she had allegedly made to the Trust
and the detriment she claimed to have suffered as a result.
The Employment Tribunal ruled that it did not have jurisdiction
to hear Ms McTigue's claim as she was not a "worker"
under the standard definition or the extended definition that
applies to whistleblowing. Ms McTigue appealed to the EAT.
The EAT allowed the appeal. The Employment Tribunal had erred in
concluding that the Trust could not have substantially determined
the terms on which Ms McTigue worked for TMS, because TMS had done
so. The EAT held that the definition allowed for both the end-user
and the agency, or either of them, to have substantially determined
the individual's employment terms. Thus, the Employment
Tribunal should have considered whether TMS and the Trust both
substantially determined the terms on which Ms McTigue worked at
the referral centre. The case was remitted to a fresh Employment
This EAT decision confirms that, depending on the extent to
which the agency and end-user have both determined the terms under
which the individual is engaged to work for the end-user, an agency
worker may bring a whistleblowing claim against the agency, the
end-user or both.
Dentons is the world's first polycentric global law firm. A
top 20 firm on the Acritas 2015 Global Elite Brand Index, the Firm
is committed to challenging the status quo in delivering consistent
and uncompromising quality and value in new and inventive ways.
Driven to provide clients a competitive edge, and connected to the
communities where its clients want to do business, Dentons knows
that understanding local cultures is crucial to successfully
completing a deal, resolving a dispute or solving a business
challenge. Now the world's largest law firm, Dentons'
global team builds agile, tailored solutions to meet the local,
national and global needs of private and public clients of any size
in more than 125 locations serving 50-plus countries.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
The event serves as high-level networking platform and gives all related parties active in the M&A insurance market the opportunity to connect and share their views. It brings together M&A insurers, transaction lawyers and tax advisers, private equity and corporate investors, and investment bankers. The M&A Insurance Summit aims to inform about new market trends, recent product developments and further business opportunities.
It was back in 1998 that Jack Straw, the then Home Secretary, asked the Law Commission to examine the law on fraud and whether a general offence of fraud would be an improvement to the body of criminal law.
The Fraud Act 2006, which represents the most radical change in the law of criminal fraud since the Theft Act 1968, came into force on January 15, 2007. We are now over a year into the new law, which seems a reasonable juncture to pose the question: has it had any impact?
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).