Mr I Fitzgerald v Teacher Active Ltd and others: 1302002/2017
JUDGMENT
[1]The tribunal declares that pursuant to the Agency Workers Regulations 2010: the claimant was an agency worker, the first respondent was a temporary work agency, and Solihull College was a hirer in a tripartite agreement.[2]The tribunal declares that the claimant’s claim, that as an agency worker, he was entitled to the same terms and conditions of employment after 12 weeks’ qualifying period as would apply as if he had been recruited into the same job by the hirer, specifically over annual leave, is well-founded; and succeeds against the first respondent.[3]The claim against the second respondent is not well-founded, fails and is dismissed. Case Number 1302002/2017 2[4]The claim against the third respondent is not well-founded, fails and is dismissed.[5]The claimant’s claim for compensation and any other remedy issues are adjourned until 10am on Monday 1 October 2018. The parties shall arrive by no later than 9.45am. The case will be heard by the same tribunal with a time estimate of 1 day.[6]The first respondent is ordered to obtain from the hirer a copy of the comparator’s contract of employment and forward a copy to the claimant and the tribunal by 4pm on 21 August 2018 and bring 3 further copies to the adjourned hearing. The comparator is a Part-time (0.6), Permanent, GCSE English & Functional Skills Lecturer, employed by the hirer. Employment Judge Dimbylow 08 August 2018 Case No: 1302002/2017 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr I Fitzgerald Respondent: TeacherActive Limited UPON a reconsideration of the judgment dated 1st October 2018 on the Tribunal’s own initiative under rule 73 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, and without a hearing; AND UPON the parties’ request for the tribunal to make the reconsideration decision without a hearing; AND UPON considering written representations from the parties dated: 23 October 2018 from the respondent; and 17, 23, 29 October, 7 and 23 November 2018 from the claimant:REASONS
The tribunal concluded that it was in the interests of justice to vary the original judgment. Having considered our previous findings and conclusions as to both liability and remedy, together with the further written arguments of both parties, we concluded that had we been appraised of the obligation to consider making an award of no less than 2 weeks’ pay at the time we made our decision we would have made such an award on all the information presented to us. We concluded that the decision to vary the judgment was just, fair and proportionate; and gave effect to the overriding objective of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure.