AWR Case Law

Since the introduction of the Agency Worker Regulations in 2011, there has been little AWR case law. The cases that been before tribunals have addressed the following issues:

Monarch Personnel

Agency workers driving for BP Oil UK contested that they had lost money following the introduction of a Swedish Derogation contract. But Monarch argued that they had held meetings with the drivers and that they had agreed to the new contract. The claimants argued that to be compliant with the AWR, a Swedish Derogation contract must be in place. This must be in place prior to the first ever assignment with the hirer.

The tribunal found that the contract provided to the drivers complied with regulation 10 of the AWR. The judge said that a Swedish Derogation contract did not have to be entirely new but could be a variation to the existing contract.

Kelly Services

Agency workers at Hewlett Packard complained that their pay was not comparable to that of permanent members of staff. They cited 9 instances of agency workers being taken on permanently by HP who’s pay had been increased from Despite receiving a pay rise to the equivalent rate of permanent staff with performance issues the tribunal found in favour of the workers.

Blue Arrow

Agency workers at an Airbus plant used the AWR to contest the fact that they did not receive an annual bonus.

Click here to view more case law which affects umbrella companies and the contractors and agencies who choose to work with them.