Employment status

New and updated

  • Case of the week: Volunteers and disability discrimination

    Date:
    17 November 2009
    Type:
    Law reports

    This week's case of the week, provided by Thomas Eggar, covers volunteers and disability discrimination.

  • X v Mid Sussex Citizens' Advice Bureau and another

    Date:
    10 November 2009
    Type:
    Law reports

    The Employment Appeal Tribunal has upheld an employment tribunal decision that a volunteer was unable to bring a claim of disability discrimination against the organisation for which she volunteered when it ended the arrangement.

  • Case of the week: Clarkson v Pensher Security Doors

    Date:
    30 October 2009
    Type:
    Law reports

    This week's case of the week, provided by DLA Piper, covers employment status.

  • Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher and others

    Date:
    19 October 2009
    Type:
    Law reports

    The Court of Appeal has upheld an employment tribunal decision that a group of car valeters were employees despite the existence of a written agreement that described them as independent contractors and that allowed them to substitute others to carry out their duties. The written agreement did not accurately reflect the agreement between the parties, and the requirements for an employment contract were satisfied.

  • Type:
    Legal timetable

    The Order provides that a person using facilities under the steps to work programme, and receiving or entitled to receive a training allowance in connection with the use of those facilities, shall not be treated as being in employment.

  • Employment status: "Sham" contract for services did not reflect parties' true relationship

    Date:
    19 May 2009
    Type:
    Law reports

    In Protectacoat Firthglow Ltd v Szilagyi [2009] IRLR 365 CA, the Court of Appeal held that a purported contract for services - entered into by the worker as a prerequisite for being given work - was a sham, because it did not represent the parties' true intentions and expectations. The individual was an employee, not an independent contractor.

  • Case of the week: Controlling shareholders and employment status

    Date:
    28 April 2009
    Type:
    Law reports

    This week's case of the week, provided by Thomas Eggar, covers controlling shareholders and employment status.

  • Secretary Of State For Business, Enterprise And Regulatory Reform v Neufeld and another

    Date:
    8 April 2009
    Type:
    Law reports

    The Court of Appeal had held that there is no reason in principle why a director and controlling shareholder cannot also be an employee.

  • Protectacoat Firthglow Ltd v Szilagyi

    Date:
    4 March 2009
    Type:
    Law reports

    The Court of Appeal has upheld an employment tribunal finding that an individual was an employee, despite the existence of a services agreement. For such an agreement to be a sham, there is no need for there to be an intention to deceive a third party.

  • Employment status: Substitution of labour clause was a sham as it did not reflect the parties' true intentions

    Date:
    22 November 2008
    Type:
    Law reports

    In Redrow Homes (Yorkshire) Ltd v Buckborough and another EAT/0528/07, the EAT held that the real intention behind a contract between Redrow Homes and bricklayers on its construction site was that the bricklayers would personally perform the work. The express provision that there was no personal obligation was a sham. Accordingly, they were "workers" and entitled to holiday pay.