All items: Employment status

• expand

  Hospital Medical Group Ltd v Westwood [2012] IRLR 834 CA (2 reports relating to this case)

  • Employment status: Self-employed GP was a "worker" for the purposes of the Employment Rights Act 1996

    Date:

    20 February 2013

    In Hospital Medical Group Ltd v Westwood [2012] IRLR 834 CA, the Court of Appeal held that a self-employed GP who provided hair restoration services for a private clinic was a "worker" for the purposes of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

  • Court of Appeal rejects argument that self-employed contractors cannot be "workers"

    Date:

    3 August 2012

    The Court of Appeal has held that a self-employed GP who provided hair restoration services for a private clinic was a "worker" for the purposes of the Employment Rights Act 1996. 

• expand

  Ironmonger v Movefield Ltd t/a Deerings Appointments [1988] IRLR 461 EAT (1 report relating to this case)

  • Contracts of employment: Agency worker not an employee

    Date:

    10 January 1989

    The EAT holds in Ironmonger v Movefield Ltd t/a Deering Appointments that no contract of employment existed between an employment agency and the worker for whom it acted as agent.

• expand

  James v London Borough of Greenwich [2007] IRLR 168 EAT (2 reports relating to this case)

  • Employment status: No employment contract between worker and end user

    Date:

    1 May 2007

    In James v London Borough of Greenwich [2007] IRLR 168 EAT the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that an employment tribunal properly decided that there was no implied contract of employment between an agency worker and the end user for whom she had worked for three years.

  • Case of the week: Agency workers' employment status

    Date:

    13 February 2007

    This week's case of the week, provided by Lovells, covers agency workers' employment status.

• expand

  James v London Borough of Greenwich [2008] IRLR 302 CA (2 reports relating to this case)

  • Employment status: Agency worker was not employed by end user

    Date:

    21 March 2008

    In James v London Borough of Greenwich [2008] EWCA Civ 35, the Court of Appeal held that, in the absence of an express contract between an agency worker and the end user, a contract will be implied only where it is necessary to do so to give business reality to the situation.

  • Agency workers' rights

    Date:

    29 February 2008

    This week's case of the week, provided by DLA Piper, covers agency workers' rights.

• expand

  James v Redcats (Brands) Ltd [2007] IRLR 296 EAT (1 report relating to this case)

  • James v Redcats (Brands) Ltd

    Date:

    11 April 2007

    In James v Redcats (Brands) Ltd [2007] IRLR 296 EAT, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has given guidance on the definition of a worker under the national minimum wage legislation.

• expand

  Lane v Shire Roofing Company (Oxford) Ltd [1995] IRLR 493 CA (1 report relating to this case)

  • Contracts of employment: Employment status in the safety context

    Date:

    1 October 1995

    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.

• expand

  Levy McCallum Ltd v Middleton EATS/0020/05 (1 report relating to this case)

  • Case round-up: Employment status

    Date:

    6 September 2005

    This week's case round-up from Eversheds, covering employment status.

• expand

  Local Government Yorkshire and Humber v Shah EAT/0587/11 & EAT/0026/12 (2 reports relating to this case)

  • Acas code of practice: Uplift to compensation for failure to follow code not available to workers

    Date:

    23 January 2013

    In Local Government Yorkshire and Humber v Shah EAT/0587/11 & EAT/0026/12, the EAT held that the potential uplift in compensation awarded where an employer unreasonably fails to comply with the "Acas code of practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures" applies only in the case of employees. A worker who was subjected to an unlawful detriment was not entitled to an uplift.

  • EAT holds workers are not entitled to compensation uplift where employer fails to comply with Acas code

    Date:

    6 September 2012

    The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that only employees, and not workers, can be awarded a compensation uplift of up to 25% where the respondent has unreasonably failed to comply with the "Acas code of practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures". 

• expand

  Macfarlane and another v Glasgow City Council [2001] IRLR 7 EAT (1 report relating to this case)

  • Macfarlane and another v Glasgow City Council

    Date:

    1 January 2001

    In Macfarlane and another v Glasgow City Council [2001] IRLR 7 EAT, the EAT held that, despite a clause in the worker's contract expressly entitling the worker to substitute a replacement to do the work if unable to attend work, the worker was deemed to be an employee rather than a sub-contractor.

• expand

  Mailway (Southern) Ltd v Willsher [1978] IRLR 322 EAT (1 report relating to this case)

  • Employment status: Casual workers mustbe obliged to work to have contract

    Date:

    22 November 1978

    People who work on a casual basis will have difficulty in showing that they have a contract of service unless they prove that they are obliged to work when called upon to do so and in reality have no choice as to when they work. This was made clear recently by the EAT in Mailway (Southern) Ltd v Willsher.