BECTU response on the Draft Statutory Instrument Employment Agencies etc 2001
12 March 2001
BECTU response on the Draft Statutory Instrument Employment Agencies etc 2001 to the UK Government DTI (Department of Trade and Industry).
BECTU, with a long-standing interest in the operation of agencies as they affect our members in the audiovisual and entertainment sector, is pleased to have the opportunity to comment on the proposed Regulations. We also commented on the earlier Consultation Document. Since some of the proposals (and our own views on them) remain essentially unchanged, we have attached our earlier submission for purposes of cross-reference. Our views, including those on new issues or changed proposals, are set out below:
Licensing
1. We retain an underlying preference for the reintroduction of a licensing system, as set out in our earlier submission.
Regulations 5,7,13,14,16,23
2. We continue to welcome these provisions, for the reason set out in our earlier submission. Our particular concerns include the issue of requirements to use additional services; industrial disputes; and the use of more than one agency ('daisy chaining').
Regulation 10: Restriction on changes to hirers
3. Our concerns in this area derive not from the experiences of our walk-on or film artiste members (who mainly work through agencies) but from the small but significant group of other freelance members who work through employment businesses. We have come across examples of workers who have been hired from an employment business to a broadcaster such as the BBC for a fee; who have then been offered the possibility of permanent employment with the broadcaster; but whose opportunity to undertake this has been threatened by the employment business seeking to charge a further significant fee ie the fee becomes a real disincentive for the broadcaster to offer the permanent job.
4. We therefore welcome the proposed limitations on charges by employment businesses to hirers on the grounds that workers' job opportunities should not be blocked or limited by excessive charging practices.
Regulations 18 and 19: Information from a hirer/Confirmation about a work-seeker
5. Our membership includes a number of categories of workers in which certain kinds of experience, training or qualifications are, in our view, essential eg the need for recognised competence, from a health and safety viewpoint, of special effects workers and riggers.
6. There are a number of industry training schemes endorsed by BECTU which, while not falling into the category of traditional professional qualifications (such as for lawyers and doctors) are nonetheless absolutely essential for the safe and competent performance of the duties in these key areas.
7. We therefore welcome the requirements on obtaining information from hirers and confirming the qualifications of work-seekers but strongly urge that a broad and informed view be taken of what counts as necessary training etc in order to encompass the sort of industry schemes referred to above.
Regulation 25: Client accounts
8. In our previous submission we welcomed a number of the provisions contained within Regulation 25, while retaining a major concern about the option, in 25(10), for agents to hold workers' money for 'such longer period....as the work seeker has previously requested.' This remains our position.
9. We retain the view, from bitter experience in the entertainment industry, that work-seekers (especially walk-ons) are often simply not in a strong enough position to insist on prompt payment from agents. In practice, such individuals will simply not be able to make full use of the provisions in Regulation 25 (including the right in 25 (11) to require payment within two working days).
10. We continue to favour either the removal of the provision in 25(10) for 'requesting' a longer period for agents to hold money; or the introduction of a new provision under which no commission can be deducted by an agent until they have made the relevant payment to the work-seeker.
11. We welcome the new requirement, in 25(7), for itemised statements to accompany all payments from agencies to work-seekers.
Regulation 26: Charging of fees to work-seekers
12. We welcome the change in 25(1) under which agents can only charge a fee in the form of a charge or commission out of earnings from employment which the agency has found for the work-seeker. We recognise that this effectively rules out the charging of upfront 'book fees' by agents who may subsequently find no significant work for the work-seeker.
13. However, we have a serious remaining concern, which is that the continuing ability of agents to deduct a 'charge' (which we take to be a flat fee) could still leave open the possibility of abuse by unscrupulous agents who find just enough work and therefore earnings to cover the charge but who then leave the work-seeker with minimal net gain and no further prospect of work. In this sense 'book fees' could still be charged retrospectively by agents who have no serious intention of finding further work for their clients. If evidence of continuing abuse of this kind emerges in the future, we would want consideration given to the banning or capping of such charges.
Schedule 2: Operation of client accounts
14. We welcome the provision in Schedule 2(2), if this has the effect of genuinely increasing the protection of clients when their agent becomes insolvent.
Conclusion
15. We hope you will take due note of our views, including our continuing concerns on Regulations 25 and 26. Given the amount of time the Regulations have already been under discussion we then look forward to their being brought into effect as soon as possible.