13 May, 2010
The UK Equality and Human Rights Commission recently published the damning results of an inquiry into the recruitment and treatment of agency workers in the meat and poultry processing sector in England and Wales.
Although the investigation focused exclusively on the meat and poultry industry, it was said that “...the Commission has no evidence to suggest that supply chain practices in the meat processing sector are more detrimental to workers than in any other sector that makes significant use of low-paid, agency migrant labour.”
The Commission found evidence of widespread poor treatment of agency workers, especially among those who are migrants or who are pregnant, both by agencies and by user enterprises. In particular, the Commission found evidence of practices that contravene legal requirements, ethical trading standards, and basic human rights. Other types of treatment were described as being “an affront to dignity.”
One-third of agencies told the investigators that they had acted unlawfully by recruiting workers of particular nationalities, by giving preference to candidates with particular nationalities they judged the user firm would prefer, or by discriminating against certain nationalities at the direct request of the user firm.
While flexibility is often cited as being an advantage of agency work by the industry, only two workers cited the flexibility of agency work as a positive aspect. Almost all workers said they would prefer permanent work due to the security and rights it offers. More than 80% of the interviewees said that agency workers were treated worse than permanent workers in every aspect of their job. The agency workers said they received poorer pay, were allocated the worst jobs, and were treated like inferiors. Not a single interviewee thought that agency workers were treated better than their permanent counterparts.
Workers reported being refused toilet breaks, and enduring physical and verbal abuse. Concerns about health and safety were raised in over half the interviews, and many interviewees expressed concern that their personal protective equipment was poor quality, ill fitting, shared with other workers, or missing altogether.
The Commission found that abusive treatment was less common in organised factories, and said that “In workplaces where unions are recognised, or have a strong presence, we found that they provide a significant degree of protection for workers.” However, some workers reported that their right to Freedom of Association had been restricted and reported instances where hostility of companies towards union activities discouraged people from joining a union for fear of retribution.
The report concludes with a set of recommendations to key bodies in the industry to “encourage a systematic change in behaviour,” and improve the operations of the Gangmaster Licensing Authority (GLA). Although outside of its remit, the Commission said “...that there is a case for broadening the GLA’s remit to include other sectors where low-paid agency workers are at risk of exploitation” and urged the government to positively consider this proposal.
Commenting on the findings, Nicola Smith, Senior Policy Officer at the UK’s Trades Union Congress (TUC), said, “This strongly evidenced based report demonstrates the scale of mistreatment that continues across low paid industries, where temporary workers with insecure employment status face some of the greatest risks. The TUC remains concerned that such exploitative practices are not confined to the meat processing sector.”