Employment status
In Consistent Group Ltd v Kalwak and others [2008] EWCA Civ 430, the Court of Appeal remitted to a fresh tribunal the issue of whether or not Polish nationals engaged by an agency to work as meat packers for a third party were employees of the agency.
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.
This week's case of the week, provided by Addleshaw Goddard, covers the employment status of directors and shareholders.
In Consistent Group Ltd v Kalwak and others [2007] IRLR 560 EAT the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that polish workers recruited in Poland by the agency in question and provided with both accommodation in the UK and transport to and from work were employees of the agency. Notwithstanding express written terms to the contrary, the reality of their relationship was one of employer and employees.
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.
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.
In Craigie v London Borough of Haringey EAT/0556/06, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has considered when a contract of employment can be implied between an agency worker and an end user.
In ABC News Intercontinental Inc v Gizbert EAT/0160/06, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that there was sufficient mutuality of obligation for a contract of employment to exist where an individual had an implied duty to consider in good faith whether to accept or refuse work.
In Percy v Church of Scotland Board of National Mission, the House of Lords holds that a church minister who had entered into a contract personally to execute work or labour was an "employee" for the purposes of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.
This week's case round-up from Eversheds, covering employment status.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to employment status.