Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Agency workersEmployment lawHR practice

Changing Agency Workers Directive would have ‘opened a can of worms’, experts say

by Daniel Thomas 20 Oct 2010
by Daniel Thomas 20 Oct 2010

The Government was right not to attempt to amend the Agency Workers Regulations (AWR) ahead of their implementation next year as it would have “opened a can of worms” and potentially left employers worse off, according to employment experts.

Employment relations minister Edward Davey confirmed yesterday that the Government will not be proceeding with any amendment to the Regulations, admitting that a failure to reach agreement with the CBI and the TUC had prevented changes, adding that any reforms risked being overturned if the TUC went to court.

The decision comes despite Conservative Party promises to review what it described as “unfair” regulations prior to the general election.

Davey said that the Government will instead use the next 12 months to develop the “best possible” guidance to help employers comply with their obligations.

Mike Emmott, employee relations adviser at the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, said the Tories were looking for something specific to talk about around de-regulation and targeted the AWR.

“But they were obviously unable to find a more serviceable set of regulations and would have opened a can of worms by altering them,” he told Personnel Today. “Any attempt to undo them would have put the 12-week qualifying period at risk and potentially left employers worse off.”

David Yeandle, head of employment policy at manufacturers’ organisation EEF, agreed that any changes could have put at risk the 12-week qualifying period before equal treatment has to apply. “This would have been too serious a risk for the Government to take as retaining this key element of these regulations will help to ensure that agency working remains a key part of the UK’s flexible labour market,” he said.

Emmott said that the announcement reflects just how difficult it is to actually “slash red tape”. “Every Government comes in planning to cut red tape and every Government ‘retires hurt’,” he said. “It’s just a pipe dream these days.”

Susanna Gilmartin, partner at law firm Thomson Snell & Passmore, confirmed that the Government has had little scope to make changes.    

“The regulations are designed to give effect to the European Agency Workers Directive; failure to do this would have exposed the Government to legal challenge,” she said. “This would have potentially resulted in claims for compensation being brought by temporary workers who would have been denied the protection enshrined in the Directive.” 

John Cridland, CBI deputy director-general, described the announcement as “disappointing”.

“While we agree that preserving the 12-week qualifying period is essential, changes proposed by employers would have cut red tape without changing the overall effect of the Regulations,” he said.

“We regret that the Government hasn’t been able to reach agreement with the trade unions on this. The priority now has to be timely, high-quality guidance, so that employers know where they stand well before the new rules come into force.”

Sarah Veale, head of employment rights at the TUC, said that the decision was the right one. “An agreement was reached between the TUC and the CBI two years ago, after many hours of discussion and compromises from both sides,” she said.

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

“There is no point unpicking that now, after the Regulations have been enacted, and business and unions are preparing to work cooperatively with what we have agreed.”

XpertHR has more information and guidance on the Regulations.

Daniel Thomas

previous post
Digital revolution for Specsavers Corporate Eyecare
next post
Comprehensive Spending Review: 490,000 public sector job cuts expected

You may also like

Seven ways to prepare now for the Employment...

20 Jun 2025

The employer strikes back: the rise of ‘quiet...

13 Jun 2025

Lawyers warn over impact of Employment Rights Bill...

13 Jun 2025

Racism claims have tripled and ‘Equality Act is...

12 Jun 2025

Healthdaq: Shaking up health and social care recruitment

11 Jun 2025

Court rejects Liberty’s legal challenge against EHRC consultation

9 Jun 2025

US Supreme Court lowers burden of proof for...

6 Jun 2025

Institute of Directors demand reforms to Employment Rights...

6 Jun 2025

Employment Rights Bill: peers propose change to work...

4 Jun 2025

Facilities firms share ‘deep concerns’ on workers’ rights

4 Jun 2025

  • Empowering working parents and productivity during the summer holidays SPONSORED | Businesses play a...Read more
  • AI is here. Your workforce should be ready. SPONSORED | From content creation...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+