Agencies CAN refuse to use opt-in contractors

[cojak]

You may (but probably weren't) wondering why I've been rootling around the Agencies Act over the last few weeks.

It was because a previous thread pointed out that some agencies were stating on their websites that they do not accept applicants who do not opt-out. While I opt-out I didn't think that this stance was legal and so I sent a request to the BIS asking about it.

This is their response.

Dear Cojak
EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES ACT 1973
Thank you for your email about employment agencies indicating that they will only seek to find work for contractors who have opted out of the Conduct of Employment Agencies or Employment Businesses Regulations 2003.

I can inform you that the Employment Agency Standards (EAS) Inspectorate, based in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, is responsible for enforcing the provisions of the Employment Agencies Act 1973 and associated regulations. This legislation requires employment agencies and employment businesses to abide by specified minimum standards of conduct. Further details about the legislation can be obtained from our website, Employment Agency Standards inspectorate | Policies | BIS
I can advise you that it is not illegal under the Employment Agencies Act 1973 or Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003 for an employment agency or employment business to insist that they will only seek work for work-seekers who will agree to opt out of the Conduct Regulations. This is a business decision that employment agencies or employment business might make without contravening the employment agency legislation.
I hope this has clarified the position.
Regards
XX XX
Head of Employment Agency Standards
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

A business decision then. There you have it...

[malvolio]

OK, not a problem. If they give me a clear B2B contract for services and reflect that in their contract with the end client, then the EAR are completely out of scope anyway, there's nothing to opt out of and everyone's happy.

You do have to wonder sometimes...

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Makes you wonder why they bothered introducing the legislation in the first place really!!!

[cojak]

They put the regs there for everyone initally - you can thank PCG for pushing the opt-out and making it all null and void.

[BolshieBastard]

OK, not a problem. If they give me a clear B2B contract for services and reflect that in their contract with the end client, then the EAR are completely out of scope anyway, there's nothing to opt out of and everyone's happy.

You do have to wonder sometimes...

isnt it? How many agencies will do what you say? Very few imho. So there is \ will be a problem.

[Taita]

You may (but probably weren't) wondering why I've been rootling around the Agencies Act over the last few weeks.

It was because a previous thread pointed out that some agencies were stating on their websites that they do not accept applicants who do not opt-out. While I opt-out I didn't think that this stance was legal and so I sent a request to the BIS asking about it.

This is their response.

A business decision then. There you have it...

Very interesting. Admittedly, I only scanned the regs one a long time ago but I did not think Agencies could ask Jobseekers to opt out which amounts to the same thing IMO

[malvolio]

isnt it? How many agencies will do what you say? Very few imho. So there is \ will be a problem.

Sadly there isn't a "tongue-in-cheek" helmie...

B2B contracts, as opposed to the usual "contract of employment with lots of get out of jail clauses", would financially benefit the agency, the client and us in roughly equal measure, and put a lot of the various laws affecting temporary agency workers - i.e. not us freelance contractors - totally out of scope. That's been the case for at least 10 years, it ain't going to change.

[BolshieBastard]

Sadly there isn't a "tongue-in-cheek" helmie...

B2B contracts, as opposed to the usual "contract of employment with lots of get out of jail clauses", would financially benefit the agency, the client and us in roughly equal measure, and put a lot of the various laws affecting temporary agency workers - i.e. not us freelance contractors - totally out of scope. That's been the case for at least 10 years, it ain't going to change.

So, we agree there is still a problem.

[Contreras]

They put the regs there for everyone initally - you can thank PCG for pushing the opt-out and making it all null and void.

So I wonder is that a good thing or a bad thing?

[cojak]

So I wonder is that a good thing or a bad thing?

Now that is a very good question...