Managing employees/workers
In McMeechan v Secretary of State for Employment, the Court of Appeal holds that a temporary worker on the books of an employment agency may have the status of employee of the agency in respect of each assignment actually worked, notwithstanding that the same worker may not be entitled to employee status under his or her general terms of engagement.
The EC Business Transfers Directive does not apply to a change in the contractor providing contracted-out services, unless there is a concomitant transfer of significant tangible or intangible assets from the existing contractor to the new contractor, or the new contractor takes over a major part of the workforce (in terms of the numbers and skills of employees) assigned to the performance of the contract by its predecessor, rules the European Court of Justice in Süzen v Zehnacker Gebäudereinigung GmbH Krankenhausservice and another.
In Smith v Safeway plc (16 February 1996) EOR69A, the Court of Appeal holds that an appearance code which applies a standard of what is conventional applies an even-handed approach between men and women, and not one which is sex discriminatory.
An industrial tribunal was entitled to find that an employee objected to transferring to a new employer and informed his employer of that objection, holds the EAT in Hay v George Hanson (Building Contractors) Ltd.
In Wilson and others v St Helens Borough Council, the EAT holds that the Transfer of Undertakings Regulations prohibit even a consensual variation in the terms and conditions of employment of employees transferred where the transfer of the undertaking is the reason for the variation
In Thames Water Utilities v Reynolds, the EAT holds that the Apportionment Act 1870 applied to the computation of a day's annual holiday pay to which an employee was contractually entitled on termination of his employment, and that the meaning of "a day" for these purposes is a calendar day rather than a working day.
Where the whole of an employer's business is transferred, all of its employees will normally be "assigned" to that business for the purposes of the Transfer of Undertakings Regulations, holds the EAT in Duncan Web Offset (Maidstone) Ltd v Cooper and others.
An employee cannot complain that he or she has been refused time off for trade union duties unless it is established that a request for time off was made which came to the notice of the employer's appropriate representative, and that they either refused it, ignored it or failed to respond to it, holds the EAT in Ryford Ltd v Drinkwater.
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.
The EAT holds in McMeechan v Secretary of State for Employment and another that where a temporary worker's relationship with an employment agency or business is governed by a written contract, the employment status of that worker is dependent on the construction of the contractual terms.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to managing employees/workers.