Please sign in with your existing account details.
Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.
Privacy statement - Terms and conditions
Forgotten your password?
You have exceeded the maximum number of login attempts for this email address and your account has been locked. An email has been sent to member of Browne Jacobson's web team and some one will be contacting you over the next two working days with details of how to change your password.
Are you sure you want to remove this item from you pinned content?
In order to determine whether an individual is an employee or self-employed contractor it is necessary to look at what both parties agreed. This is typically reflected in the written terms of a contract, but may not be.
In Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher, 20 valeters described themselves as self-employed, paid their own tax, purchased their own insurance, uniforms and materials, and signed contracts which said they could choose when to attend work and send along a substitute worker. In fact, it was always intended that they would have to attend work and undertake that work themselves; the business would not have operated otherwise. The Supreme Court held that the valeters showed that the written agreement between the parties entered into was not reflected in the terms. So the true relationship was that of an employer and employee.
Previously, as long as the written contract is not a ‘sham’, (which was a high threshold test), the written terms prevailed. Now, this approach is too narrow. Employers should now bear in mind that a skilfully drafted written contract (which this one was) designed to make someone a contractor not an employee, will be disregarded if there is evidence (as there was here) that a different agreement was actually reached.
For the first time, the Office for National Statistics (“ONS”) has analysed pay gaps between disabled and non-disabled employees in the UK using newly reweighted earnings data from the Annual Population Survey.
View blog
An Employment Tribunal has considered the definition of “employee” under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 and concluded that this definition is wide enough to cover those who would be more usually described within the UK as workers.
The decision of the Supreme Court extends the scope of whistle-blower protection and is a wider approach than that taken in direct discrimination claims.
An 89 year old former patient pathway co-ordinator has been awarded £200,000 by an Employment Tribunal for unfair dismissal and age and disability discrimination following her dismissal on capability grounds.
Senior Associate
Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.
Sign up