TUC lodges complaint against government over ‘unfair’ AWR
2 September 2013
Controversy over the Agency Workers Regulations reignited this morning, after the news that the Trades Union Congress (TUC) has lodged a complaint with the European Commission against the government.
Mon, 2 Sep 2013Controversy over the Agency Workers Regulations reignited this morning, after the news that the Trades Union Congress (TUC) has lodged a complaint with the European Commission against the government.
The TUC claims that tens of thousands of agency workers are being paid less than permanent staff who are doing the same jobs. It says it has gathered evidence from workplaces where agency staff are paid up to £135 a week less than permanent staff, despite working in the same place and doing the same job.
Speaking on Radio 4’s Today programme, Sarah Veale, the TUC’s head of equality and employment rights, said the problem was the Swedish Derogation, under which workers are employed directly by the agency on permanent contracts of employment, and are paid four weeks’ salary between assignments.
Veale claimed the derogation sometimes referred to as ‘pay between assignments’ (PBA) was a “loophole”, which resulted in many workers being paid only “minimal” amounts between assignments and left them worse off compared with permanent workers employed by the end client.
“We are not saying that employers are breaking the current UK laws. We are saying that the UK is not properly implementing the spirit and intention of the EU Directive to provide equal treatment after 12 weeks for people doing the same job,” said Veale.
Speaking in response, Kevin Green, chief executive officer of the Recruitment & Employment Confederation (REC), told presenter Jim Naughtie that the TUC was being “disingenuous”.
“PBA is not a loophole. It is a legitimate part of the legislation – agreed after extensive consultation,” Green said. “Either the agency worker is paid the same as a permanent worker, or they become permanent employees of a recruitment organisation… That is what this piece of legislation does.”
Green continued: “It works to the benefit of both the worker and the employer – it is a win-win.”
Azmat Mohammed, director general of the Institute of Recruiters, tells Recruiter: “There is no doubt that AWR and Swedish Derogation are not perfect, but they have gone a long way to improving working conditions in their first iteration. That has to be construed as progress and the TUC should be pleased about that.
“For me – great leaps forward have been made, no laws are being broken and people are finding work, that is all welcome. AWR was never going to be a panacea, but progress comes in stages.”
A spokesperson for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, (BIS) told Recruiter: "We worked closely with both employers and employee organisations to successfully implement the Agency Workers Regulations. We will of course consider carefully any information the TUC presents to the European Commission.”
Katja Hall, CBI chief policy director, says: “Many firms prefer to pay an agency to provide temps using the Swedish Derogation rather than face the bureaucracy involved with complying with the directive. This is perfectly understandable and entirely within EU law.”
Among the employers to have used the Swedish Derogation are Morrisons and BT.
This is not the first time controversy has blown up over the Swedish Derogation.
In January, staffing industry giant Manpower was in the firing line after the Communications Workers Union (CWU) accused it of using it as a way of avoiding paying more than 1,000 call centre workers the same as their agency colleagues.
In May last year a CBI/Harvey Nash survey found that 27% of employers changed their model of temporary labour use to include the Swedish Derogation. /news/2012
And in January this year, recruiter.co.uk reported that recruitment company Monarch Personnel Refueling had successfully defended its use of a Swedish Derogation contract.
The TUC claims that tens of thousands of agency workers are being paid less than permanent staff who are doing the same jobs. It says it has gathered evidence from workplaces where agency staff are paid up to £135 a week less than permanent staff, despite working in the same place and doing the same job.
Speaking on Radio 4’s Today programme, Sarah Veale, the TUC’s head of equality and employment rights, said the problem was the Swedish Derogation, under which workers are employed directly by the agency on permanent contracts of employment, and are paid four weeks’ salary between assignments.
Veale claimed the derogation sometimes referred to as ‘pay between assignments’ (PBA) was a “loophole”, which resulted in many workers being paid only “minimal” amounts between assignments and left them worse off compared with permanent workers employed by the end client.
“We are not saying that employers are breaking the current UK laws. We are saying that the UK is not properly implementing the spirit and intention of the EU Directive to provide equal treatment after 12 weeks for people doing the same job,” said Veale.
Speaking in response, Kevin Green, chief executive officer of the Recruitment & Employment Confederation (REC), told presenter Jim Naughtie that the TUC was being “disingenuous”.
“PBA is not a loophole. It is a legitimate part of the legislation – agreed after extensive consultation,” Green said. “Either the agency worker is paid the same as a permanent worker, or they become permanent employees of a recruitment organisation… That is what this piece of legislation does.”
Green continued: “It works to the benefit of both the worker and the employer – it is a win-win.”
Azmat Mohammed, director general of the Institute of Recruiters, tells Recruiter: “There is no doubt that AWR and Swedish Derogation are not perfect, but they have gone a long way to improving working conditions in their first iteration. That has to be construed as progress and the TUC should be pleased about that.
“For me – great leaps forward have been made, no laws are being broken and people are finding work, that is all welcome. AWR was never going to be a panacea, but progress comes in stages.”
A spokesperson for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, (BIS) told Recruiter: "We worked closely with both employers and employee organisations to successfully implement the Agency Workers Regulations. We will of course consider carefully any information the TUC presents to the European Commission.”
Katja Hall, CBI chief policy director, says: “Many firms prefer to pay an agency to provide temps using the Swedish Derogation rather than face the bureaucracy involved with complying with the directive. This is perfectly understandable and entirely within EU law.”
Among the employers to have used the Swedish Derogation are Morrisons and BT.
This is not the first time controversy has blown up over the Swedish Derogation.
In January, staffing industry giant Manpower was in the firing line after the Communications Workers Union (CWU) accused it of using it as a way of avoiding paying more than 1,000 call centre workers the same as their agency colleagues.
In May last year a CBI/Harvey Nash survey found that 27% of employers changed their model of temporary labour use to include the Swedish Derogation. /news/2012
And in January this year, recruiter.co.uk reported that recruitment company Monarch Personnel Refueling had successfully defended its use of a Swedish Derogation contract.
