The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that the employment tribunal was wrong to hold that a former apprentice, who had a "university sponsorship contract" with the respondent company, was an employee and had been unfairly dismissed when that contract came to an end.
In Flett v Matheson, the EAT holds that the employment tribunal had correctly found that the employee was not employed under a traditional fixed-term contract of apprenticeship as his training period involved a tripartite agreement between the employer, employee and a training provider.
In Edmonds v Lawson QC and others, the High Court declares that a pupil barrister who had attained the age of 26 was a "worker" within the meaning of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 because she was employed under a contract of apprenticeship.
An employer cannot terminate a "true" contract of apprenticeship before the fixed period of the apprenticeship expires solely on the ground of redundancy falling short of complete closure, or of a fundamental change in the character, of the employer's enterprise, holds the High Court in Wallace v CA Roofing Services Ltd.
An industrial tribunal was entitled to find that two apprentices had finished their apprenticeships a few days before they were dismissed, holds the EAT in Devonport Management Ltd v Grant and McCombes, so that by the date of dismissal they were employees entitled to the "ordinary incidents of employment laws".
HR and legal information and guidance relating to apprenticeship and training contracts.