So part of the Act says the clock is re-set - because they have worked for a different legal entity and completely stopped working at Company "A". However (we are advised) the overriding part of the act says: under six weeks break for any reason, the clock is paused. It seems that actually working at another company does not have any real effect on the clock. Once the break is six weeks then it may alter the consideration of constructive avoidance if the worker is actively employed by another company (legal entity).
If the worker simply did not work then was re-employed by Company "A", then they may argue constructive avoidance.
We have a number of questions with the Department of Business and innovation relating to clarification on the AWR. The answers when they come will be published in this section of our site.
The AWR has been updated, https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2011/1941/made
We have received clarification (amongst other things, on the order in which certain conflicting provisos should be applied). These changes will be incorporated in our end of September release.
For the act itself here:
For reasonably readable 57 pages of information on comparison of benefits for temp workers versus substantive staff and other parts of the act then more here:
Follow us on
for updates on our progress.
Whist every effort has been made to ensure this summary article
is a consistent portrayal of the Act, Added value applications
accepts no liability for this content which is inevitably a much
condensed interpretation and opinion based on our reading of the
act and other relevant published government sponsored articles. Terms and
This article is the copyright of Added value applications Ltd and may not be copied or distributed without our written permission. You may however provide unlimited links to this article from any other web sites.