Workers not covered under Blacklisting Regulations

Facts

Mr Smith worked for construction giant John Mowlem through an employment agency and lost his initial tribunal claim, even though blacklisting was admitted, because he had no direct employment relationship with the blacklister.

Smith argued that the combined effect of the need to protect his human rights to freedom of association and reputation, as well as the influence of the ground-breaking Supreme Court judgment of Autoclenz v Belcher [2011] UKSC 41, required the EAT to imply a contractual relationship between him and Mowlem, the hirer.

Ruling

The EAT refused to imply a contract between blacklisted health and safety rep Dave Smith and John Mowlem, leaving him unprotected by the Blacklists Regulations 2010.

Commentary

This is a disappointing judgment, confirming the current legal position which is that unless there is a contract of employment between the employer and employee, either express or implied (see page 32), the employee will have no protection under the Blacklists Regulations 2010.

Smith v Carillion (JM) Ltd & Anor/UKEAT/2014/0081_13_1701.html

www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2014/0081_13_1701.html