Case 2203460/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Hay v ERM Certification & Verification Services Limited (trading as ERM CVS LTD) — 2020
- Case reference
- 2203460/2020
- Decision date
- 18 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Isaacson Tribunal
- Panel members
- Mr T Robinson, Ms P Keating
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Hay
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr Hay was an agency worker assigned to the respondent's finance team as an accounts receivable worker from 25 November 2019. It accepted that he was not told about the respondent's intranet, Minerva, or that vacancies were posted there, on the respondent's website or on LinkedIn, and held that this was a breach of regulation 13 of the Agency Workers Regulations 2010 because he had not been given the information needed to have the same opportunity as comparable workers to find permanent work with the hirer.
The tribunal also found that Mr Hay did apply for the permanent AR role on Indeed.com on 29 January 2020, but his application was not considered because of an administrative error in the recruitment process. It found that, even if his application had been received, he would not have been appointed because the respondent did not think he was capable of performing the role, and in any event the role was never filled because permanent recruitment was frozen. For the regulation 13 breach, the tribunal awarded two weeks' gross pay, totalling £1,120.
On the detriment claim, the tribunal found that Mr Hay complained on 13 March 2020 that the respondent had breached the AWR, that his complaint was not investigated independently, and that the communications on 17 and 18 March 2020 conveyed that his continued assignment depended on how he conducted himself after raising the allegation. It held that his assignment was ended because he had alleged a breach of the AWR, so the regulation 17 complaint was well founded. The tribunal also found that the assignment would in any event have ended by 15 April 2020, so it assessed loss at three weeks' gross pay, £1,680, making a total compensation award of £2,800 subject to any later injury to feelings award after further representations.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agency worker regulations | The tribunal found that the respondent breached regulation 13 of the Agency Workers Regulations 2010 by failing to inform the claimant, an agency worker, where and how to access vacancy information during his assignment. Compensation was assessed at two weeks' gross pay, calculated at £16 per hour for a 35-hour week. | Upheld | — | £1,120 |
| Agency worker regulations | The tribunal found that the claimant suffered a detriment when his assignment was ended because he alleged that the respondent had breached the AWR. The award was calculated as three weeks' gross pay, on the basis that the assignment would in any event have ended by 15 April 2020, and the tribunal said the amount could be increased if an injury to feelings award was later made. | Upheld | — | £1,680 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,800
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £2,800
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
6 references- regulation 13(4) AWR 2010
- regulation 17(2) and 17(3)(a)(v) AWR 2010
- regulation 18(10)-(11) AWR 2010
- London Underground Ltd v Amissah and Others [2019] EWCA Civ 125
- Angard Staffing Solutions and anor v Kocur and anor EAT(2020)
- Vento guidelines
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.