1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156 
Appeal against agency decision
Page 30
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• An appeal against the decision by Norwich magistrates that a job agency was not the employer of the lorry driver which it supplied at the request of another company, is being considered CM was told this week.
The case arose out of 10 charges against the agency, Richard Burgon Associates Ltd, trading as Manpower, of Norwich, of failing to keep records and two of unauthorized use, and one each of permitting a driver to exceed the working day and failing to issue a driver's record book.
The prosecution contended that since Manpower took the driver concerned on its books, carefully vetted his abilities and history, paid his wages, made the statutory stoppages and held National Insurance cards then this company was the employer and responsible for the offences.
The defence while not disputing that Manpower paid the wages maintained that the company was not the employer in the true sense. Manpower's function was to provide drivers to client companies who then became the drivers' employers with full control over their work. The clients had the option to accept or reject any particular driver offered to them as well as the power to dismiss him.
For Manpower Ltd, the general manager, Mr H. Mottram, said that the DoE had approached the firm in July last year about needing operator's licences as employers of drivers although it did not own vehicles. Since then a contract specifying the services which would be performed for clients by itself, or franchise companies such as Richard Burgon, had been signed.
The contract had been drawn up on legal advice and stated that on assignment to a client the driver became the employee of the client. Though Manpower would do various jobs for the client such as pay the driver, deduct tax and National Insurance payments, it was the client which dismissed him from the job if he was guilty of misconduct.
Manpower did not insure for negligence by a driver under the Employer's Liability Act 1972 as it considered that the client as the employer took responsibility for the employer's obligations.
The magistrates dismissed the case.