Employment status
In Bunce v Postworth Ltd (t/a Skyblue), the Court of Appeal holds that, in certain circumstances, there may be an umbrella agreement governing the relationship between a worker and an employment agency, alongside individual, separate contracts in respect of specific assignments for the agency's clients.
In Usetech Ltd v Young (Inspector of Taxes) [2004] EWHC 2248 HC, the High Court found that where an individual provided his services through his own service company and an agency all the contracts were subsumed into one. The relevant terms identified and transferred to the notional contract between the individual and the hirer were consistent with those of an employment contract.
In Soteriou v Ultrachem Ltd and others [2004] IRLR 870 HC, the High Court held that the EAT had not erred in striking out the applicant's claim for wrongful dismissal on the basis that an employment tribunal had already determined on a claim for unfair dismissal that the applicant's contract of employment was unenforceable due to illegality and that, since the claim for wrongful dismissal involved the same contract, the EAT was bound by that finding.
Voluntary workers were not "employees" as defined in s.68 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, holds the EAT in South East Sheffield Citizens Advice Bureau v Grayson (17 November 2003).
In Brook Street (UK) Ltd v Dacas, the Court of Appeal holds that where an agency's obligations to a worker (who provides his or her services to an end-user) do not extend to an obligation to continue providing that worker with work, and where that worker is under no obligation to continue working or to accept any placement offered to them by the agency, there can be no mutuality of obligations between those parties.
In Franks v Reuters Ltd and another, the Court of Appeal holds that in determining an individual's employment status, an employment tribunal should consider, not only any relevant documents, but also all the relevant evidence about the dynamics of the work relationship between the parties, and make clear and comprehensive findings of fact on this evidence.
In Dacas v Brook Street Bureau (UK) Ltd and another, the EAT holds that an employment tribunal erred in law when it found an agency worker not to be an employee of the agency during the course of an individual assignment, in circumstances where an application of the test of the two minimum requirements of the degree of control and mutuality of obligations pointed overwhelmingly towards the existence of a contract of employment.
In Soteriou v Ultrachem, Solvo Ltd and Ultracolour Ltd, the EAT upholds an employment tribunal's decision that an employee's knowing and active participation in the deception of the tax authorities as to his employment status was primarily for his own benefit.
The EAT holds in Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v (1) Jarvis and others (2) Brentvine Ltd that an employment tribunal which expressly found that there was no contract, either written or oral, between a client company and a worker supplied to it by an employment agency, erred in law in going on to rule that the existence of factors consistent with a contract of employment subsisting, and the fact that the worker had worked continuously for the client company for nine years, made her an employee of the client company.
In Hewlett Packard Ltd v O'Murphy, the EAT holds that a computer specialist was not an employee of the company to which he provided his services - Hewlett Packard - as there was no contractual relationship of any kind between them.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to employment status.