Employment status
In Motorola Ltd v Davidson and another, dealing solely with the issue of control, the EAT holds that a client of an employment agency had sufficient control over the worker assigned to it to sustain a finding that it was in fact the employer of the worker.
In Carmichael and another v National Power plc, the House of Lords holds that two women who accepted a company's written offer of employment as tour guides "on a casual as required basis", and then worked as guides on invitation when they were available and chose to work, were not employees under contracts of employment.
In Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Bottrill, the Court of Appeal upholds an employment tribunal's finding that a controlling shareholder of a company could also be an employee of that company for the purposes of the employment protection legislation.
In McMeechan v Secretary of State for Employment, the Court of Appeal holds that a temporary worker on the books of an employment agency may have the status of employee of the agency in respect of each assignment actually worked, notwithstanding that the same worker may not be entitled to employee status under his or her general terms of engagement.
In Lane v The Shire Roofing Co (Oxford) Ltd, the Court of Appeal holds that a roofer hired by a company for an individual roofing job was an employee, and so the company was liable to pay damages for the personal injury he suffered when he fell off his ladder whilst carrying out that work.
The EAT holds in McMeechan v Secretary of State for Employment and another that where a temporary worker's relationship with an employment agency or business is governed by a written contract, the employment status of that worker is dependent on the construction of the contractual terms.
An Industrial Tribunal's decision as to whether a contract is a contract of employment can only be overturned on appeal if the Tribunal misdirected itself in law or reached a perverse decision on the facts, the majority of the Court of Appeal concludes in the widely publicised case of O'Kelly and others v Trusthouse Forte Plc.
In Massey v Crown Life Insurance Co [1978] IRLR 31 CA, the Court of Appeal held that, whilst the parties to a contract cannot alter the truth of their relationship by putting a different label upon it, when it is ambiguous as to whether the employment is under a contract of employment or a contract for services, the terms of an agreement between the parties may be decisive as to what is the legal relationship.
In Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance [1968] 1 All ER 433 HC, the High Court held that a contract of service existed if three conditions were fulfilled, one of these being that the provisions of the contract should not be inconsistent with its being a contract of service. In this case the rights conferred and the duties imposed by the individual's contract with the company were not such as to make the contract one of service.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to employment status.