|
Employment Contract In English Law
An employment contract in English law is a specific kind of contract whereby one person performs work under the direction of another. The two main features of a contract is that work is exchanged for a wage, and that one party stands in a relationship of relative dependence, or inequality of bargaining power. On this basis, statute, and to some extent the common law, requires that compulsory rights are enforceable against the employer. There are diverging views about the scope by which English law covers employees, as different tests are used for different kinds of employment rights, legislation draws an apparent distinction between a "worker" and an "employee", and the use of these terms are also different from their use in the European Court of Justice and European Union Directives. Under the Employment Rights Act 1996 section 230, an "employee" is anyone with a contract of service, which takes its meaning from a series of court cases that are also applicable for tax and tort law, ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
English Contract Law
English contract law is the body of law that regulates legally binding agreements in England and Wales. With its roots in the lex mercatoria and the activism of the judiciary during the industrial revolution, it shares a heritage with countries across the Commonwealth of Nations, Commonwealth (such as Australian contract law, Australia, Canadian contract law, Canada, Indian contract law, India), from membership in the European Union, continuing membership in Unidroit, and to a lesser extent the United States. Any agreement that is enforceable in court is a contract. A contract is a Voluntariness, voluntary Law of obligations, obligation, contrasting to the duty to not violate others rights in English tort law, tort or English unjust enrichment law, unjust enrichment. English law places a high value on ensuring people have truly consented to the deals that bind them in court, so long as they comply with statutory and UK human rights law, human rights. Generally a contract forms w ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Cassidy V Minister Of Health
''Cassidy v Ministry of Health'' 9512 KB 343 is an English tort law and UK labour law case concerning the scope of vicarious liability. Facts Mr Cassidy went to hospital for a routine operation on his hand, but came away with stiff fingers because of the negligence of one of the doctors. He attempted to sue the Ministry of Health in its capacity as employer. The Ministry argued it could not be held responsible and had no vicarious liability, relying partly on '' Collins v Hertfordshire'' where it had been suggested that a surgeon was not the 'servant' of his employer. Judgment The Court of Appeal held that the doctor was indeed a servant of the hospital and the Ministry was vicariously liable, because the doctor was integrated into the health organisation. Denning LJ said, He also noted,9512 KB 343, 362 that where a patient selects the doctor, then the doctor will not be employed by a hospital. See also *Contract of employment in English law * EU labour law *US labor law *G ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Autoclenz Ltd V Belcher
''Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher'' 011UKSC 41is a landmark UK labour law and English contract law case decided by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, concerning the scope of statutory protection of rights for working individuals. It confirmed the view, also taken by the Court of Appeal, that the relative bargaining power of the parties must be taken into account when deciding whether a person counts as an employee, to get employment rights. As Lord Clarke said, Facts Twenty car valeters, including Mr Paul Huntington and Mr Belcher, worked for Autoclenz Ltd in Measham, Derbyshire. Autoclenz Ltd had contracted with British Car Auctions Ltd (BCA) to provide valeting services. The valeters engaged by Autoclenz claimed holiday pay and pay at the rate of the national minimum wage. They had each signed contracts describing them as self-employed. Paul Huntington worked full-time from 1991 until the hearing before the Employment Tribunal (and thereafter) except for a few weeks working f ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Minimum Wage
A minimum wage is the lowest remuneration that employers can legally pay their employees—the price floor below which employees may not sell their labor. Most countries had introduced minimum wage legislation by the end of the 20th century. Because minimum wages increase the cost of labor, companies often try to avoid minimum wage laws by using gig workers, by moving labor to locations with lower or nonexistent minimum wages, or by automating job functions. The movement for minimum wages was first motivated as a way to stop the exploitation of workers in sweatshops, by employers who were thought to have unfair bargaining power over them. Over time, minimum wages came to be seen as a way to help lower-income families. Modern national laws enforcing compulsory union membership which prescribed minimum wages for their members were first passed in New Zealand in 1894. Although minimum wage laws are now in effect in many jurisdictions, differences of opinion exist about the benefit ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
ERA 1996
The Employment Rights Act 1996 (c. 18) is a United Kingdom Act of Parliament passed by the Conservative government to codify existing law on individual rights in UK labour law. History Previous statutes, dating from the Contracts of Employment Act 1963, included the Redundancy Payments Act 1965, the Employment Protection Act 1975 and the Wages Act 1986. It deals with rights that most employees can get when they work, including unfair dismissal, reasonable notice before dismissal, time off rights for parenting, redundancy and more. It was amended substantially by the Labour government since 1997, to include the right to request flexible working time. This coincides with the Rights at Work Act 1995. Part I, Employment particulars An employee has an employment contract. ERA 1996 section 1(2) states, that the main terms of the contract must be in writing and provided to the employee within two months of the start of their employment. This document is called a "written statement of ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Airfix Footwear Ltd V Cope
Airfix is a British brand and former manufacturing company which produced injection-moulded plastic scale model kits. In the U.K., the name 'Airfix' is synonymous with plastic models of this type, often simply referred to as "an airfix kit" even if made by another manufacturer. Airfix manufactured a wide range of model products such as cars, aircraft, ships, commercial vehicles, military vehicles, railways, and figures. Founded in 1939, Airfix was owned by Humbrol from 1986 until the latter's financial collapse on 31 August 2006. Since 2007, both Humbrol and Airfix have been owned by Hornby. History Airfix was founded in 1939 by a Hungarian businessman Nicholas Kove, initially to manufacture inflatable rubber toys. The brand name was selected to be the first alphabetically in trade directories. In 1947, Airfix introduced injection moulding, initially producing pocket combs. In 1949, the company was commissioned to create a promotional model of a Ferguson TE20 tractor, ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
James V Greenwich LBC
''James v Greenwich London Borough Council'' 008EWCA Civ 35is a UK labour law case, concerning implied contracts for workers who work through employment agencies. Its opinion was reversed by the Agency Workers Regulations 2010 and superseded by the more recent Supreme Court decision by Lord Clarke in ''Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher''. Facts Mrs James had worked for Greenwich London Borough Council, Greenwich Council (through a Brook Street plc subsidiary) for three years. She had begun with one agency, but then had changed to a different agency. She signed a new ‘temporary worker agreement’. The agencies paid her based on weekly timesheets. She was dismissed after she apparently took sick leave for two months without informing the agency or the council for her reasons. When Mrs James returned, she had been replaced. She claimed that she was unfairly dismissed. The Employment Tribunal held that Mrs James did not have the requisite mutuality of obligation to support a contract exist ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
O’Kelly V Trusthouse Forte Plc
''O'Kelly v Trusthouse Forte plc'' 983ICR 728 was a UK labour law case, in which a bare majority held that a requirement for a contract is "mutuality of obligation" between the parties, which was thought to mean an ongoing duty to offer and accept work. It has been consistently doubted, and its outcome reversed by legislation, and its reasoning superseded by ''Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher'', which states that the only "mutual" obligations that are required is the consideration of work for a ''quid pro quo''.E McGaughey, ''A Casebook on Labour Law'' (Hart 2019) ch 3, 113 Facts Some waiters were hired to do dinner functions at the Grosvenor House Hotel. They were called up for banqueting occasions, and in their contracts it was written that they had no obligation to come, and by the same token the employer had no obligation to call them. They tried to organise a trade union, and were dismissed. They argued that they were dismissed unfairly, because trade union legislation (now in t ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Dacas V Brook Street Bureau (UK) Ltd
''Dacas v Brook Street Bureau (UK) Ltd'' 004EWCA Civ 217UK labour law">is a UK labour law case, concerning the employment rights of agency workers. Facts Patricia Dacas had worked for Wandsworth LBC (on assignment through Brook Street plc) as a cleaner for four years. She was dismissed for apparent rudeness to a visitor. She claimed unfair dismissal against both Brook Street and the local council. The Employment Tribunal held that Dacas had neither a contract of service with the employment agency, nor any contract at all with the council. On appeal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held the Tribunal had erred in law, and found that Dacas was employed by Brook Street. Judgment The Court of Appeal, Mummery LJ, Sedley LJ and Munby J, held that Brook Street had been under no obligation to provide Dacas with work, and Dacas had been under no obligation to accept, and simply because Brook Street had paid her, this did not make Brook Street her employer. Instead the council had day to ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Nethermere (St Neots) Ltd V Gardiner
''Nethermere (St Neots) Ltd v Gardiner And Another'' 984ICR 612 is a UK labour law case in the Court of Appeal in the field of home work and vulnerable workers. Many labour and employment rights, such as unfair dismissal, in Britain depend on one's status as an "employee" rather than being "self-employed", or some other "worker". This case stands for the proposition that where "mutuality of obligation" between employers and casual or temporary workers exists to offer work and accept it, the court will find that the applicant has a "contract of employment" and is therefore an employee. This case is also notable in that it was one of former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair's last cases conducted as a barrister. He acted for the employers. He appeared in the Employment Appeal Tribunal on behalf of the employer but his arguments to deny the workers' unfair dismissal rights were emphatically rejected in the judgment. The employers also lost in the Court of Appeal. Facts The applicants ( ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Brian MacKenna (judge)
Sir Bernard Joseph Maxwell MacKenna (12 September 1905 – 20 October 1989), known as Sir Brian MacKenna, was an Irish-born British barrister and judge. He was a High Court, sitting in the Queen's Bench Division, from 1961 to 1977. Biography Born in Ireland, MacKenna became a ward of chancery at a young age after the death of his father. He was educated at Clongowes Wood College, University College, Dublin, in Germany, and at New College, Oxford, where he was secretary of the Oxford Union. Having opted to set up practice in London instead of Dublin, MacKenna was called to the bar by the Inner Temple in January 1932 and joined the Western Circuit. After pupillage with James Tucker, he joined the chambers of Walter Monckton, with whom MacKenna worked closely. He was made a Queen's Counsel in 1950 and elected a Master of the Bench of the Inner Temple in 1958. MacKenna was appointed to the High Court in 1961 and received the customary knighthood. As a judge, he was critical of h ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd V Minister For Pensions And National Insurance
''Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance'' 9682 QB 497 is a UK labour law case concerning the definition of a contract of service, rather than a contract for services. The distinction is important because many employment law rights under the Employment Rights Act 1996 require that a claimant has "employee" status under s 230. An employee is defined as someone with a contract of employment, and that is defined to be a contract of service (or apprenticeship). This is a leading case. A senior UK judge has stated that employment status is a matter of law. This statement needs to be understood as clarifying that the parties to a contract do not have the clear power to define and agree (in a contract) that the contract is either employment, or not-employment. This decision, where in dispute, is a matter for the courts. Facts Thomas Latimer had worked for Ready Mixed Concrete Ltd as a yard batcher from 1959 to 1963. The company delivered ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
