redrow_buckboroughEAT2008
EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS: Worker, employee or neither
WORKING TIME REGULATIONS: Worker / Holiday pay
As in Redrow Homes (Yorkshire) Ltd v Wright 2004 IRLR 720, the issue in this appeal was whether workmen engaged by Redrow to work on their building sites were workers for the purposes of Reg. 2(1) of the Working Time Regulations, or were self-employed contractors. The standard contract between Redrow and the workmen had been adapted by Redrow so as to remove the provisions which led to their losing on that issue in 2004; the men agreed to provide such labour as was necessary to maintain the require rate of progress but were not obliged to perform the labour themselves.
Held, upholding the Employment Tribunal’s decision in favour of the men, that:
(1) the Employment Tribunal’s finding that the obligations provision in the contract was a sham did not contain any error law in the light of Consistent Group v Kalwak in the EAT and the CA.
(2) In any event the obligations provisions imposed on the men a duty either to provide the required labour themselves or to find someone else to do so; and thereby the men were under a contract personally to execute work and thus fell within Reg. 2(1).
Citations:
[2008] UKEAT 0528 – 07 – 1010, [2009] IRLR 34
Links:
Cited by:
Cited – Launahurst Ltd v Larner EAT 18-Aug-2009
EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS: Worker, employee or neither
For 13 years the Claimant worked installing double glazing for the Respondent. In 2004 he signed a ‘contract supply agreement’ though matters continued . .
Cited – Launahurst Ltd v Larner CA 30-Mar-2010
The company appealed against a finding that the respondent was its employee and not an independent contractor, and that its contract with him was a sham.
Held: The employer’s appeal succeeded. The EAT had erred: ‘there was plainly a procedural . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.276814