*Not* allowed to interview for permanent position (AWR Regulations)

[jmo21]

That was the application.
They rejected you.
Onwards and upwards...

This.

Do they need to spelt it out to you? They don't want you.

[Old Greg]

This.

Do they need to spelt it out to you? They don't want you.

There is a grain of truth in this.

[NotAllThere]

This is the correct forum Pauly, continue your thread here.

If he'd looked carefully in General, he'd have seen a redirection to this forum.

[northernladuk]

I recall something saying that a company has to advertise their permanent positions and allow contractors to at least apply?

Any questions, feel free to ask.

You are an external company providing a service to a client. Why on gods earth do think that gives you any right to see permie positions first? I would go read up on .ir35 and rethink who you are and what you are to your client. This is the mindset of a hidden permie. You need to get yourself a perm job there cause you are not acting like a contractor.

[NotAllThere]

I think it's the mindset of a temp wanting the option to go for a permie job under the AWR regulations.

[pauly]

You are an external company providing a service to a client. Why on gods earth do think that gives you any right to see permie positions first? I would go read up on .ir35 and rethink who you are and what you are to your client. This is the mindset of a hidden permie. You need to get yourself a perm job there cause you are not acting like a contractor.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2...lation/13/made

Rights of agency workers in relation to access to employment

13.—(1) An agency worker has during an assignment the right to be informed by the hirer of any relevant vacant posts with the hirer, to give that agency worker the same opportunity as a comparable worker to find permanent employment with the hirer.

(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1) an individual is a comparable worker in relation to an agency worker if at the time when the breach of paragraph (1) is alleged to take place—

(a)both that individual and the agency worker are—
(i)working for and under the supervision and direction of the hirer, and
(ii)engaged in the same or broadly similar work having regard, where relevant, to whether they have a similar level of qualification and skills;
(b)that individual works or is based at the same establishment as the agency worker; and
(c)that individual is an employee of the hirer or, where there is no employee satisfying the requirements of sub-paragraphs (a) and (b), is a worker of the hirer and satisfies those requirements.
(3) For the purposes of paragraph (1), an individual is not a comparable worker if that individual’s employment with the hirer has ceased.

(4) For the purposes of paragraph (1) the hirer may inform the agency worker by a general announcement in a suitable place in the hirer’s establishment.


Not asking to see any permie position "first" - just to be access and apply for them as anyone else would be able to. Clearly the manager is skirting around the internal HR procedures and close to the AWR regulations, which are designed to provide equal opportunity.

Does the above provide the opportunity to point out that the manager's actions are not appropriate?

[malvolio]

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2...lation/13/made

Rights of agency workers in relation to access to employment

13.—(1) An agency worker has during an assignment the right to be informed by the hirer of any relevant vacant posts with the hirer, to give that agency worker the same opportunity as a comparable worker to find permanent employment with the hirer.

(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1) an individual is a comparable worker in relation to an agency worker if at the time when the breach of paragraph (1) is alleged to take place—

(a)both that individual and the agency worker are—
(i)working for and under the supervision and direction of the hirer, and
(ii)engaged in the same or broadly similar work having regard, where relevant, to whether they have a similar level of qualification and skills;
(b)that individual works or is based at the same establishment as the agency worker; and
(c)that individual is an employee of the hirer or, where there is no employee satisfying the requirements of sub-paragraphs (a) and (b), is a worker of the hirer and satisfies those requirements.
(3) For the purposes of paragraph (1), an individual is not a comparable worker if that individual’s employment with the hirer has ceased.

(4) For the purposes of paragraph (1) the hirer may inform the agency worker by a general announcement in a suitable place in the hirer’s establishment.


Not asking to see any permie position "first" - just to be access and apply for them as anyone else would be able to. Clearly the manager is skirting around the internal HR procedures and close to the AWR regulations, which are designed to provide equal opportunity.

Does the above provide the opportunity to point out that the manager's actions are not appropriate?

First question - are you an agency worker? If you're through a brolly you may be but probably aren't, otherwise you're almos certainly not.

Second question - if you're not, why do you think the AWR applies?

[kmge]

pauly, questions for you.

Where you placed within AWR by the Client Co?
Did you get a rate hike or does your Agency pay for Holiday, Bank Holiday?
Did yoyu recieve any confirmation from Client Co or Agency that they considered you within AWR?

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

If you are inside IR35 - AWR will apply and you can't opt-out; if you are outside IR35 AWR will not apply. Whilst this statement is not totally perfect as we have no case law yet relating to AWR it is a good indicator

HTH

[pauly]

If you are inside IR35 - AWR will apply and you can't opt-out; if you are outside IR35 AWR will not apply. Whilst this statement is not totally perfect as we have no case law yet relating to AWR it is a good indicator

HTH

I had seen something from the clientco agency 3-6 months ago indicating that they believe Ltd contractors are outside of AWR (but they would say that).

Am billing through own Ltd company. No rate rises have occurred and no holidays are paid for. Accounts are taken care by my accountant and therefore not sure of treatment - the client company is unlikely to know this either way.

As its ambiguous, AWR "could" be shown to apply - and does this therefore mean that I have some potential to redress with clientco?

If this is the case, my concerns about the hiring managers approach are more likely to receive a hearing, if diplomatically communicated to this risk adverse clientco company.