The claimants had come to the employer through an agency. The issue now was whether they were the employees of the respondent. The employer said there was no mutuality of obligation, and therefore no contract, and no possible dismissal.
Held: The tribunals findings of fact could not support their conclusion that in law the claiments were employees of the respondent.
Judges:
His Honour Judge D Pugsley
Citations:
EAT/0831/00
Statutes:
Citing:
Cited – Hewlett Packard Ltd v M O’Murphy EAT 26-Sep-2001
The applicant, a computer programmer, worked through his own limited company. That company contracted with an agency to provide his services, and the agency contracted with appellant to supply on those services. The contracts did contain some . .
Cited – Carmichael and Another v National Power Plc HL 24-Jun-1999
Tour guides were engaged to act ‘on a casual as required basis’. The guides later claimed to be employees and therefore entitled by statute to a written statement of their terms of employment. Their case was that an exchange of correspondence . .
Cited – Stevedoring and Haulage Services Limited v A M Fuller and others CA 9-May-2001
The claimants were stevedores whose contracts were intermittent. The employer denied that they were employees.
Held: There was no contract while the claimants were not at work. There was no overarching or global contract, and it was not . .
Cited – Montgomery v Johnson Underwood Ltd CA 9-Mar-2001
A worker who had strictly been employed by an agency but on a long term placement at a customer, claimed to have been unfairly dismissed by the customer when that placement ended.
Held: To see whether she was an employee the tribunal should . .
Cited – Motorola Ltd v Gary Davidson, Melville Craig Group Ltd EAT 18-May-2000
EAT Contract of Employment – Definition of Employee . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.172078