In person, with the assistance of her brother-in-law, Mr Aly For the v Mr L Millington, Solicitor — 2026

Mrs M Ilyas, an agency worker employed by Angard Staffing Solutions Ltd, had been assigned to Royal Mail’s Midlands Super Hub since February 2024 to sort and handle post. She claimed under regulation 5 of the Agency Workers Regulations 2010 that she received lower pay than comparable Royal Mail employees and was denied paid rest breaks available to them. The tribunal dismissed both complaints, finding that she had not established less favourable terms than she would have received if Royal Mail had recruited her directly into the same job in February 2024.

The tribunal found that Royal Mail introduced new terms from 1 December 2022, providing lower pay and unpaid rest breaks for new recruits. The old and new terms applied nationally across its processing function to both directly employed staff and agency workers. Earlier recruits could therefore receive higher pay and paid breaks while doing the same work. Regulation 5 required comparison with the terms applicable to a direct recruit at the start of the claimant’s qualifying period. The tribunal did not need to resolve whether she completed the 12-week qualifying period in June or September 2024.

The tribunal accepted Mr K, a fixed-term employee at Swansea Mail Centre, as a comparator on the same terms as the claimant. His contract had been extended, and differences in automation between sites did not prevent the work from being broadly similar in the skills and qualifications required. Regulation 5 allowed comparison with employees at another establishment where there were no relevant comparators at the claimant’s site. Mr L was rejected as a comparator because his continuous employment began in April 2022; signing revised terms in November 2025 did not make him a new recruit. Mrs PK was also accepted as a comparator employed on the same terms as the claimant. No relevant comparator receiving the old terms was identified at the North-West Super Hub.

An outsourced payroll error had caused approximately 700 Angard agency workers, excluding the claimant, to receive pay under the old terms from October 2023 until its correction on 29 September 2025. The tribunal rejected the claimant’s argument that this established an entitlement through custom and practice for the purposes of her regulation 5 claims. Those claims required comparison with Royal Mail employees, and there was no evidence that any such employees were affected by the error. No unlawful deductions from wages claim had been brought. The tribunal also found no breach concerning paid breaks even without the two accepted comparators. Both claims were dismissed, and no remedy was awarded.