Deaneries as employment agencies: possible junior doctor claims
June 2008
Associated information can be found here
In order to apply pressure to the Department of Health and the deaneries, and in the interests of improving conditions for junior doctors, the JDC is looking for junior doctor members who may have a claim against a deanery for failure to comply with the employment agency legislation, based on the following scenarios:
1. Lack of information about a future post that, had it been known in advance, would have meant a doctor would not have taken the decision to work for a particular employer.
The legislation requires an employment agency to inform work-seekers of a range of details about a period of work before they ‘introduce’ them to a new employer. For junior doctors, ‘before an introduction’ could either mean before the deanery sends the name and other details of the doctor to the new trust, or before a contractual relationship is formed between the employer and the worker e.g. in an offer letter. The junior doctor must be given details about the post (as set out in the link above), and the opportunity to decline it, before the deanery informs the employer of their name.
One quite straight forward example would be about removals and associated travelling expenses. Under the legislation, the agency must inform the work-seeker of any expenses payable by the employer to the worker, and for junior doctors this would include relocation and/or travelling costs.
If a junior doctor has found that once in post, they are not entitled to reimbursement of travelling expenses to the level that they might expect from national guidance on the matter, and that they have been financially disadvantaged to the extent that they would have taken the decision not to work for the employer in question had they been aware of the consequences, they may have a legitimate claim. The JDC would welcome enquiries from any junior doctor in this position.
2. Subjection to a detriment by an employment agency for termination of a contract.
The legislation prevents an agency from subjecting, or threatening to subject, a work-seeker to detriment if the work-seeker terminates a contract.
This is relevant for doctors who made multiple applications to specialty training in 2007 and/or 2008 and who had accepted an offer but having received a further more preferable offer withdrew, or would like to have withdrawn, from their first offer. Many deaneries indicated to candidates that this was unacceptable and that they would report the doctor to the GMC and further request that the new deanery withdrew their offer.
The MMC Applicants Guide to the 2008 recruitment process apparently gives licence to this practice. Under the employment agency legislation a deanery that took this action could be considered to be submitting the junior doctor to a detriment and this is likely to be challengeable. We would like to hear from doctors who wished to withdraw from an original offer in favour of a subsequent one, but who did not follow this through following a warning from their deanery or due to the prior information provided by deaneries indicating that such a withdrawal would have adverse consequences. Such doctors would have to demonstrate that they suffered a loss as a result. This could be in the form of having to fund a house move that would not have been necessary if they had been able to take up the second offer. Claims from doctors who did withdraw and who were treated detrimentally would also be feasible.
If you think your case falls into either of these categories, and would be willing to progress a claim against the actions of the deanery in question, please email info.jdc@bma.org.uk describing your situation in as much detail as possible.