agency-worker-tip-inclusion

---
name: agency-worker-tip-inclusion
description: Checks whether every agency worker on a rota was actually counted when tips were allocated, because the Employment (Allocation of Tips) Act 2023 puts agency workers inside the same fair-allocation duty as directly employed staff, not as an optional extra a venue can leave out because the agency, not the venue, pays their wages. It works from the actual rota and the actual allocation, and it treats a venue excluding an agency worker from the same split that direct staff get as the government's own example of a likely unfair outcome. Use whenever an agency worker has covered a shift, when you are deciding a tip split policy that must also cover them, or when an agency worker asks why they were not in the pool.
---

# The tip split that does not quietly drop the agency worker

You give this the rota for the period, marked with who is directly employed and who is supplied by an agency, and the tip allocation that was actually paid out. You get back a worker-by-worker check of whether every agency worker who covered a shift was included, and a verdict against the government's own worked examples of fair and unfair treatment.

## What it does

1. **Starts from the Act's own definition of who is covered.** Section 27H of the Employment Rights Act 1996, as inserted by the Employment (Allocation of Tips) Act 2023, brings an "eligible agency worker" inside the same Part as a directly employed worker where they work at the principal's place of business; the Act treats the venue, as the principal, as responsible for them being included in the allocation decision.
2. **Uses the government's own examples of what counts as unfair, rather than inventing a test.** The non-statutory guidance for employers states "it is intended that agency workers are not unduly disadvantaged solely by virtue of being engaged through an agency," and gives two contrasting examples: a bar that excludes an agency worker from tip distribution is described as likely to be found unfair, while a probation policy applied equally to all staff including agency workers is described as likely to be equal treatment. The skill checks a real rota against that same distinction.
3. **Checks both legs of the payment, because the money can go two ways.** Section 27H allows the amount to be paid to the agency instead of directly to the worker, with the agency then required to pass it on, without unauthorised deductions, before the end of the following month. The skill checks that an agency worker shown as "included" in the allocation also actually received the money through one of those two routes.
4. **Treats equal weight for queries as a separate duty from equal allocation.** The statutory Code's paragraph 46 states "employers should ensure they give equal weight to queries from agency workers as they do to their own," so an agency worker's question about their tips cannot be routed more slowly, or to a different person, than the same question from a directly employed colleague.
5. **Does not assume an equal share is required, only equal consideration.** The guidance is clear that agency workers do not necessarily get an identical share to directly employed staff; the test is whether they were genuinely considered using the same factors, not whether every worker received the same number.

## Then it checks

1. Every agency worker on the rota for the period appears somewhere in the tip allocation record, either as a direct payee or as an amount passed to their agency.
2. No allocation method applies only to directly employed staff while an agency worker covered the same shift under the same conditions.
3. Where an amount was paid to an agency rather than the worker, a date is recorded for when the agency paid it onward, checked against the statutory deadline.
4. Any query logged from an agency worker shows the same response time and handling as queries from direct staff in the same period.
5. Any agency worker excluded from the allocation has a stated, factor-based reason on file, not silence.

Any check fails: name it, redo that step once. Failed twice: say what is wrong and stop.

## Rules
- Public information only. Never invent a fact, a number or a quote.
- Anything sent in someone's name says whose name it is.
- Never treat "the agency pays their wages" as a reason to exclude an agency worker from the tip allocation; the Act puts them inside it.
- Never assume an agency worker was paid just because an amount was sent to the agency; the skill checks for the agency's onward payment date, not just the venue's own ledger.
- This is a working document for the owner to check against their own rota and payroll records and for their solicitor to check where exclusion has already happened. It is not legal advice.

## Built from
- Employment Rights Act 1996, Part 2B, section 27H, as inserted by the Employment (Allocation of Tips) Act 2023 c.13, https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/13, Royal Assent 2 May 2023, read 4 November 2026: the eligible agency worker definition and payment chain, behind steps 1 and 3.
- Department for Business and Trade, "Distributing tips fairly: non-statutory guidance for employers", https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/distributing-tips-fairly-non-statutory-guidance-for-employers/distributing-tips-fairly-non-statutory-guidance-for-employers, read 4 November 2026: the bar and probation worked examples, behind steps 2 and 5.
- Department for Business and Trade, "Code of Practice on Fair and Transparent Distribution of Tips", https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/distributing-tips-fairly-statutory-code-of-practice/code-of-practice-on-fair-and-transparent-distribution-of-tips-html-version, published 29 July 2024, in force 1 October 2024, read 4 November 2026: paragraph 46 on equal weight for queries, behind step 4.

# agency-worker-tip-inclusion

## You are given
The rota for the period, one row per worker per shift, marked `direct` or `agency`, with the agency name for agency rows. The tip allocation record for the same period, showing who received what and whether an agency row's amount was paid to the worker directly or sent to the agency. For any amount sent to an agency: the date it was sent and, if known, the date the agency paid the worker. Any worker queries logged about tips, with who raised them, when, and when they were answered. Any stated reason for excluding a worker from the allocation.

## Produce
Write into a `./agency-worker-tip-inclusion-output/` folder:

1. `rota-inclusion-check.csv` with columns: `row_ref`, `worker_name`, `employment_type`, `shift_date`, `appears_in_allocation`, `payment_route`, `excluded_reason`. `row_ref` is A0001 upward. `employment_type` is `direct` or `agency`. `appears_in_allocation` is `yes` or `no`. `payment_route` is exactly one of `paid directly`, `paid via agency`, `not applicable (excluded)`. `excluded_reason` is the reason supplied, verbatim, or `none supplied`.
2. `agency-payment-chain.csv` with columns: `worker_name`, `agency_name`, `amount_sent_to_agency_gbp`, `date_sent_to_agency`, `agency_deadline_date`, `date_agency_paid_worker`, `verdict`. `agency_deadline_date` is the last day of the month following `date_sent_to_agency`'s month. `verdict` is exactly one of `paid on time`, `paid late`, `no onward payment date supplied`.
3. `method-consistency-check.csv` with columns: `allocation_factor_used`, `applies_to_direct_workers`, `applies_to_agency_workers`, `verdict`. `verdict` is `consistent` or `inconsistent, review needed` where a factor visibly applies to one employment type and not the other for the same shift conditions.
4. `query-handling-log.csv` with columns: `worker_name`, `employment_type`, `query_date`, `response_date`, `days_to_respond`. Sorted so direct and agency response times for the same period can be compared directly.
5. `gaps.md` - a numbered list of: every rota row where `appears_in_allocation` is `no` with `excluded_reason` of `none supplied`; every `agency-payment-chain.csv` row verdict of `paid late` or `no onward payment date supplied`; every `method-consistency-check.csv` row marked `inconsistent, review needed`; any agency worker query with a longer response time than any direct worker query in the same period.

## Rules
- Codex counts, matches and compares. It never decides that an unequal share is itself unlawful; it only reports whether agency workers were considered under the same method as direct staff, and lets an unexplained exclusion speak for itself.
- Never assume an amount sent to an agency reached the worker without an onward payment date; mark it `no onward payment date supplied` rather than `paid`.
- Use British English, GBP and DD Month YYYY dates. No em dashes in any file you write.
- Every file ends with this line: this is a working document prepared for the owner to check against their own rota and payroll records and for their solicitor to check where exclusion has already happened. It is not legal advice.

## Return
The absolute path of each file written and the row count of each CSV. The count of agency workers on the rota, how many appear in the allocation, and how many do not. Every agency payment chain verdict of `paid late` or `no onward payment date supplied`. Every inconsistent allocation method found. The comparison of direct versus agency query response times. The `gaps.md` item count.