The claimant was an employee of the defendant employment agency. She was dismissed, but in order to succeed, she had to show that the agency had more than 20 employees. To do so she had bring the agency workers in as employees. The tribunal dismissed her claim saying that in the circumstances the agency did not exercise sufficient control over the workers for them to be counted as employees.
Held: The appeal failed. The applicant was basing her claim on the status of the agency’s temporary workers generally. A tribunal must resist the temptation to conclude that an individual is an employee simply because he is not a self employed person carrying on a business of his own.
References: [1984] ICR 365
Judges: Nolan J
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Clark v Oxfordshire Health Authority CA 18-Dec-1997
A nurse was employed under a contract, under which there was no mutuality of obligation; she could refuse work and employer need offer none. This meant that there was no employment capable of allowing an unfair dismissal issue to arise.
Sir . .
(Gazette 28-May-98, , [1997] EWCA Civ 3035, [1998] IRLR 125, (1998) 41 BMLR 18) - Cited – Brook Street Bureau (UK) Ltd v Dacas CA 5-Mar-2004
The applicant cleaner sought compensation for unfair dismissal. The issue was whether she was an employee of the respondents, of their client where she did her work, or was not an employee at all. She worked for an agency, who sent her out to . .
([2004] EWCA Civ 217, , Times 19-Mar-04, [2004] ICR 1437, [2004] IRLR 358)
These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.194295