Write 12 page essay on the topic Employment Law Master.Download file to see previous pages... In view of the nature of the definition, courts have prescribed several tests for distinguishing an employ

Write 12 page essay on the topic Employment Law Master.

In view of the nature of the definition, courts have prescribed several tests for distinguishing an employee from the self-employed and also contract of service from contract for services. In Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (1968), court have already laid down for the first time a 'multiple test' to arrive at conclusion whether the person who was a lorry driver was an employee or self employed. This question arose in order decide who was liable to pay national insurance contributions. The contract with the driver had contained the following conditions.

7. The driver was not under compulsion to drive the vehicle himself and was allowed to have a substitute driver in his place. The court held that the driver as self employed because the driver did not contract to drive personally and also the tools of the trade, here lorry was his own and not the employer. MacKenna J laid down three conditions for contract of employment.

In another recent case namely Express and Echo Publications Ltd v. Tanton (1999), the Court of Appeal held that if a person is not required to work personally, he was not an employee. In yet another case of 2001, MacFarlane v Glasgow City Council (2001), the Employment Appeals Tribunal distinguished the above Tanton case. The Glasgow City Council had engaged gymnast trainers at the various centres of the council. If a trainer was unable to take a class, she could substitute herself by another gymnast who was on the approved list of coaches maintained by the council. The substitutes were paid by the council and not the gymnast trainer. In Tanton case, the substitute could be from outside and he was paid by the individual and not the employer. Thus he was not expected to turn up for work and could send substitute for a lesser price and make profit out of it. He himself became the master. In an earlier case of O'Kelly v Trusthouse Forte Plc (1983), regular casuals were held to be not employees since there was no mutuality of obligation and they were only kept as standby. Although the court of Appeal tried to give a finding that they were employees, since they had no business of their own, that the employer had effective control over the casual workers, that there were discipline and grievance procedures, that they should take permission to take off from rostered duties, the fact that they were self employed, revealed that there was no mutuality of obligation i.e the workers did not have right to claim work if not offered nor they were under obligation to accept work if offered with work.