An implied contract of employment?

Brook Street Bureau (UK) Ltd v Dacas CA TLR 19 March

Wandsworth LBC obtained the services of the claimant as a cleaner via a contract for the provision of agency workers with Brook Street. Mrs Dacas had worked exclusively for the council from 1996 to 2000 when she was alleged to have been rude to a visitor to the mental health hostel at which she worked and the council asked that she be withdrawn from the contract. Brook Street told her that no further work would be found for her. The employment tribunal found that she was not an employee of either Brook Street or the council. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that her relationship with Brook Street was an employment contract. On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that there was no Brook Street employment contract, because the contract for services was the only contract between Brook Street and the worker. Mrs Dacas had not appealed the dismissal of her claim against the council, so the Court of Appeal was not entitled to overturn that decision. However, there was the possibility of an implied contract of service between Mrs Dacas and the council, which required consideration in future cases of this kind. It would be surprising if, in a case like this, the end-user did not have powers of control or direction over the worker in such a working environment. The end-user was the ultimate paymaster. What was the council paying for, if not for the work done by Mrs Dacas under its direction and for its benefit? The result of consideration would depend on the evidence in the case about the relationship between the applicant and the end-user of her labour and how that fitted into the other triangular arrangements.