all cases sem 1 Flashcards
taff vale rly co v. ASRS [1901] 25 HL
- HL held a trade union could be sued in tort and its assests liable to be taken in judgement
*pimlico plumbers v. smith *
*aslam v. uber *
O’Kelly v. Trushouse forte [1983] ICR 728, CA
casual work- not an employee justa ‘regualr’
ready mixed concreye v minister of pensions and national insurance
emphasis on the need for control
- empasises the need for control (i.e. that the individual agrees they will be subject to the other party’s control)
- without managerial control - no contract of employment
- “A contract of service exists if these three conditions are fulfilled.
(i) the servant agrees that, in consideration of a wage or other remuneration, he will provide his own work and skill in the performance of some service for his master
(ii) he agrees, expressly or implidely, that in the performance of that service he will be subject to the others control in a sufficent degree to make that other master
(iii) the other provisions of the contract are consistent with its being a contract of service. …freedom to do a job either by one’s iwn hands or by anothers is inconsistent with a contract of service though a limited or occasional power of delegation may not be.”
stevenson, jordan & harrison Ltd v Macdonald & Evans [1952] 1 TLR 101
- is the employee “part and parcel” of the organisation?
market investigations Ltd v Minister of social security [1969] 2 QB 173
- “is the person who has engaged himself to peform these services performing them in business on his own account?” (Cooke J)
↳ in other words, do they bear the risj of that business failing, in which case they are self-employed, they’re an independent contractor. then ultimately, and thats still a relevant question to ask, but it’s not enough
‘…control will no doubt always have to be considered, although it can no longer be regarded as the sole determing factor; and that factprs which may be of importance as such matters as whether the man perfroming the services provides his own equipement, whether he hires his own helpers, what degree of financial risk he takes, what degree of responsibility for investment and management he has, and whether and how facr he has an opportunity of profiting from sound management in the performance of his task’ cooke j
cases relevant to muluality of obligation
- carmichale v National power plc [1999] 1 WLR 2042
delegation or substitution clauses
* express & echo publications v Tanton [1999] ICR 693
* McFarlane v glasgow city council [2001] IRLR 7
stringfellow resturants ltd v quashie
case for unfair dismissal
- claim for unfair dismissal
- ET found not an employee
- “control is not the only issue. even where the work-wage relationship is estab;ished and there is substantial control, there may be other features of the relatioshop which will entitle a tribunal to conclude that there is no contract of employemnt in place even during an individual engagement.”
autoclenz ltd v belcher
A: car-cleaning services provided to motor retailers and auctioneers.
B & others: 20 individual valeters
claimed that, as workers, they were entitled to be paid in accordance with the NMWR and to receive statuatory paid leave under the WTR.
issue: were B & others ‘workers’ within the relevant legislation? (same definition as s 230 (3) ERA, includes (a) those working under a contract of employment)
