EMPLOYMENT STATUS I
Three categories: employee (contract of service), worker and self-employed (contract for
services)
Employee – Contract of Service
s.230 (1) ERA 1996: An employee means "an individual who has entered into or works under
(or, where the employment has ceased, worked under) a contract of employment".
s.230 (2) ERA 1996: A contract for employment is described as "a contract of service or
apprenticeship, whether express or implied, and (if it is express) whether oral or in writing".
s.83 (2) Equality Act 2010 – Employment is an employment under a contract of
employment, a contract of apprenticeship or a contract personally to do work’
s.83 (2) Equality Act 2010 – Legislation against discrimination protects those who are in or
applying for “employment under a contract of employment, a contract of apprenticeship or
a contract personally to do work”
X v Mid Sussex Citizens Advice Bureau and another [2012] – In the absence of a
contract, there is no protection because there is no legally binding contract the
worker is engaged to do work.
People are employees if they work under a contract of employment. This can be made
writing or verbally
Worker
s.230 (3) ERA 1996: A worker is defined as: “an individual who has entered into or works
under (or where employment has ceased, worked under):
a) A contract of employment, or
b) Any other contract whether express or implied and (if express), oral or in writing,
whereby the individual undertakes to do or perform personally any work or services
for another party to the contract whose status is not by virtue of the contract that of
a client or customer of any profession or business undertaking carried on by the
individual”.
NUPFC v Certification Officer – If there is no written contract between the two
parties had no bearing. The statute (b) provides a contract may arise through
implication – the key issue is whether there is consideration, offer and acceptance.
Definition of Worker
Regulation 2 of the Working time Regulations 1998.
Section 54 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998.
Regulation 1 of the Part – Time Workers Regulations 2000.
, Public Interest Disclosure Act extends whistle-blower protection under the ERA 1996
to a wider group of individuals
Personal Service – whether the person performs work or services for a personal purpose
s.82 (2) (a) – ‘personally to do work’
James v Redcats (Brands) Ltd [2007] – the courts must ask whether the dominant purpose of
the contract is whether the provision of personal services is engaged
The absence of mutual commitment to provide and perform work whilst the
individual was not working, had no bearing on their status whilst they perform the
work
Byrne Brothers (Formwork) Limited v Baird [2002].
The important feature is whether the person must “perform personally work or
services” and a written agreement providing otherwise is not conclusive.
Worker status cannot be decided by the requirement to provide personal service
alone. If sole traders provide work as a business, then they are self-employed
workers.
Bacica v Muir [2006]
Just because someone does the work themselves, it does not make them a worker.
Bates van Winkelhof v Clyde & Co LLP [2014] – s.4(4) LLP Act 2000.
Worker status does not require a relationship of subordination
Jivraj v Hashwani
Requires the individual to be in a relationship of subordination with the enterprise
If the dominant purpose of the contract is the execution of personal work it is likely
the relationship will concern a person performing services for and under the
direction of the other party to the contract in return for remuneration
Distinctions
R v Pola (Shah Nawaz) [2009] – employees statutory duties related to health and
safety go beyond independent contractors who may not be covered.
Lister v Helsey Hall [2001]; Biffa Waste Services Ltd [2008]; E v English Province of
Our Lady of Charity [2012] – The employer is vicariously liable for acts done by an
employee in the course of their employment
Vicarious Liability
JGE v Trustees of Portsmouth Roman Catholic Diocesan Trust [2012] – Court
considered the relationship between the priest and bishop was close in character to
an employer and employee to make it just and fair to hold him vicariously liable for
the wrongful acts of its priests.
Catholic Child Welfare Society v Various Claimants [2012] – identifies policy reasons
which will make it fair, just and reasonable to impose liability on the employer:
o The employer is more likely to have the means to compensate the victim
than the employee expected to have insurance
Three categories: employee (contract of service), worker and self-employed (contract for
services)
Employee – Contract of Service
s.230 (1) ERA 1996: An employee means "an individual who has entered into or works under
(or, where the employment has ceased, worked under) a contract of employment".
s.230 (2) ERA 1996: A contract for employment is described as "a contract of service or
apprenticeship, whether express or implied, and (if it is express) whether oral or in writing".
s.83 (2) Equality Act 2010 – Employment is an employment under a contract of
employment, a contract of apprenticeship or a contract personally to do work’
s.83 (2) Equality Act 2010 – Legislation against discrimination protects those who are in or
applying for “employment under a contract of employment, a contract of apprenticeship or
a contract personally to do work”
X v Mid Sussex Citizens Advice Bureau and another [2012] – In the absence of a
contract, there is no protection because there is no legally binding contract the
worker is engaged to do work.
People are employees if they work under a contract of employment. This can be made
writing or verbally
Worker
s.230 (3) ERA 1996: A worker is defined as: “an individual who has entered into or works
under (or where employment has ceased, worked under):
a) A contract of employment, or
b) Any other contract whether express or implied and (if express), oral or in writing,
whereby the individual undertakes to do or perform personally any work or services
for another party to the contract whose status is not by virtue of the contract that of
a client or customer of any profession or business undertaking carried on by the
individual”.
NUPFC v Certification Officer – If there is no written contract between the two
parties had no bearing. The statute (b) provides a contract may arise through
implication – the key issue is whether there is consideration, offer and acceptance.
Definition of Worker
Regulation 2 of the Working time Regulations 1998.
Section 54 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998.
Regulation 1 of the Part – Time Workers Regulations 2000.
, Public Interest Disclosure Act extends whistle-blower protection under the ERA 1996
to a wider group of individuals
Personal Service – whether the person performs work or services for a personal purpose
s.82 (2) (a) – ‘personally to do work’
James v Redcats (Brands) Ltd [2007] – the courts must ask whether the dominant purpose of
the contract is whether the provision of personal services is engaged
The absence of mutual commitment to provide and perform work whilst the
individual was not working, had no bearing on their status whilst they perform the
work
Byrne Brothers (Formwork) Limited v Baird [2002].
The important feature is whether the person must “perform personally work or
services” and a written agreement providing otherwise is not conclusive.
Worker status cannot be decided by the requirement to provide personal service
alone. If sole traders provide work as a business, then they are self-employed
workers.
Bacica v Muir [2006]
Just because someone does the work themselves, it does not make them a worker.
Bates van Winkelhof v Clyde & Co LLP [2014] – s.4(4) LLP Act 2000.
Worker status does not require a relationship of subordination
Jivraj v Hashwani
Requires the individual to be in a relationship of subordination with the enterprise
If the dominant purpose of the contract is the execution of personal work it is likely
the relationship will concern a person performing services for and under the
direction of the other party to the contract in return for remuneration
Distinctions
R v Pola (Shah Nawaz) [2009] – employees statutory duties related to health and
safety go beyond independent contractors who may not be covered.
Lister v Helsey Hall [2001]; Biffa Waste Services Ltd [2008]; E v English Province of
Our Lady of Charity [2012] – The employer is vicariously liable for acts done by an
employee in the course of their employment
Vicarious Liability
JGE v Trustees of Portsmouth Roman Catholic Diocesan Trust [2012] – Court
considered the relationship between the priest and bishop was close in character to
an employer and employee to make it just and fair to hold him vicariously liable for
the wrongful acts of its priests.
Catholic Child Welfare Society v Various Claimants [2012] – identifies policy reasons
which will make it fair, just and reasonable to impose liability on the employer:
o The employer is more likely to have the means to compensate the victim
than the employee expected to have insurance
