Employment Law: Contracts of Service vs. For Services

A key test for determining employment status, where both parties are obligated to provide and perform work. Employer must offer work, employee must do the work.

A case where a doctor was dismissed by Bayer, claiming he wasn't an employee. The court looked at factors like specific duties, written agreement, and payment to decide if he was an 'employee'.

This case involved temporary veterinary inspectors who were deemed employees. The High Court disagreed, finding they were independent contractors based on the lack of 'mutuality of obligation'.

Evaluates if a worker is self-employed or an employee. Factors include control over work, tools, and profits. Different from 'mutuality of obligation'.

One aspect of determining employment status. It examines how much control the employer has over the worker's work, hours, and methods.

In the gig economy, this refers to the extent a digital platform dictates how workers perform their jobs. Key factors include rules on payment, appearance, work supervision, and scheduling.

In employment law, this refers to the ability of a worker to replace themselves with another person, often highlighting the difference between employee and independent contractor status.

The degree a worker is integrated into the business operations of an employer, indicated by factors like uniforms, training, and company branding.

The language in a written agreement between an employer and worker, which can influence employment status, but often doesn't tell the whole story.

Pay As You Earn is a system where income tax is deducted directly from your salary or wages.

A written contract outlining the responsibilities and expectations of both parties. However, the court will consider the power dynamic between employer and worker.

The court will consider all the facts and circumstances to determine the nature of the relationship, not just relying on one single factor.

A landmark case that established the principle that the nature of the relationship should be determined by examining all relevant factors, not just one document.

Case law and legal precedents help guide judges in deciding similar cases. Each case must be judged on its own merits within the framework of these established principles.

A legal agreement where a worker is employed by a company and has certain rights and protections.

A legal agreement where a worker provides a specific service to a company, but isn't an employee and doesn't have the same rights.

A factor that helps determine if a worker is an employee or an independent contractor. Examples include payment method (PAYE) and written terms.

Courts examine the power relationship between the employer and the worker, to understand how much control the employer has over the worker.

A written contract doesn't automatically determine the nature of the relationship between an employer and worker, but can help the courts decide.

This test looks at how closely a worker is integrated into the employer's business. It considers factors like uniforms, company benefits, and training.

This refers to work being a secondary or supplementary part of the business, suggesting the worker is likely an independent contractor.

This test checks if the worker acts independently, takes risks, and makes investments – all characteristics of a self-employed individual.

This landmark case challenged the traditional distinction between employee and independent contractor by arguing that Uber drivers were employees despite being classified as independent contractors. The court found that Uber drivers were independent contractors.

A landmark case that established key factors for determining employment status. A lorry driver was deemed self-employed despite working for Ready Mix Concrete, showcasing the importance of control, ownership, and financial risk in employment status.

One of the crucial questions asked in the mixed test for determining employment status. It focuses on whether the worker is personally obliged to provide their services or if someone else can perform the work.

A key factor in the mixed test. It examines whether the worker has the ability and freedom to take on other jobs and clients besides their work with the company.

A multi-faceted evaluation used to determine the employment status of an individual, considering factors like personal service, control, financial risk, and freedom to work for others.

Gig workers are often classified as independent contractors, meaning they aren't entitled to employee benefits like minimum wage, sick leave, or unemployment insurance.

This UK Supreme Court case ruled that a plumber, despite controlling his work, was still a 'worker' because he was obligated to be available for work offered by the company.

UK courts ruled Uber drivers were 'workers' because Uber exercised significant control over their work, including payment, scheduling, and discipline.

While a written contract can influence employment status, it often doesn't reflect the actual relationship between employer and worker.

The High Court case of Karshan (Midlands) Limited v Revenue Commissioners involved Domino's pizza delivery drivers who the Revenue deemed employees, but Domino's argued they were independent contractors. This case raised questions about employment status and how legal tests like the mutuality of obligations are applied.

A key test for employment status is if someone else can do the work. Domino's argued their workers could be replaced with 'approved' drivers nominated by the company. However, the court determined this wasn't true substitution if the company had to approve the replacement.

This test gauges how much a worker is part of the employer's business. Domino's drivers wore uniforms, were subject to training, and followed specific rules. This integration suggests they weren't independent contractors but rather integrated into Domino's system.

The written contract between Domino's and its drivers was considered, but similar to the Kerry Foods case, courts recognize that written contracts alone don't determine everything. The court will look at the reality of how the work is performed, not just the written terms.