Download file to see previous pages...
It is submitted at the outset that the issue remains contentious particularly in light of the continuous changes in working practices.
From a statutory perspective, the legal definition of employee is described under Section 230(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA) as “an individual who has entered into or works under……..a contract of employment”. The section 230 definition has been criticised for being ambiguous (Honeyball & Bowers. 2006) and it is necessary to refer to the common law test for defining the status of employee. The statutory provision is bolstered by the Ready Mixed Concrete test (Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions & National Insurance  2 QB 497), which requires an examination of the “overall picture” (Jupp, 2005)
The starting point for determining whether an individual is an employee is the “control” test (Honeyball & Bowers. 2006). This was established in Yewens v Noakes (1880 6 Q.B.D. 530), where Bramwell LJ asserted that:“a servant is a person subject to the command of his master as to the manner in which he shall do his work” (at pp.532-533). However, socio-economic developments in the labour market have changed the shape of employment status, thereby undermining the suitability of the control test as a sole determinant of employment status (Pitt, G. 2007).
This was further acknowledged by the Court of Appeal in Walker v Crystal Palace FC ( 1 KB 87), where the control test was given a different slant by focusing on whether the employer had the right to control the background arrangements for the work such as when and where the work was done, payments and holiday entitlements.
However, the Walker extension of the control test was further developed into the “integration” test as propounded by Lord Denning in the case of Stevenson Jordan and Harrison v MacDonald & Evans ( 1 TLR 101) “…under a contract of service, a man is employed as part of the
...Download file to see next pagesRead More
The dynamics of such a relationship has a significant impact on the manner in which organizations function. Hence laws such as Employment law or the Equality laws are brought into force in order to ensure a healthy and symbiotic relationship between employees and employers and to eliminate or prevent the occurrences of discriminatory practices at the workplace.
The Allan’s decision must satisfy the requirements of the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 and the treatments received by the shortlisted applicants must not have been subject to indirect discrimination on grounds of religion or belief within as defined by the Regulations.
If it is after two years, the employer must give sufficient but fair reason for dismissing the employee and make payment to the dismissed employee. This means that the employment contract whether in written or implied terms must be terminated only according to the provisions and the terms of the employment agreement.
‘’The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) is committed to championing better work and working lives, for the benefit of individuals, businesses, economies and society,’’ (CIPD Megatrends Report 2013:1).
Section 1:Why this goal is important for different parties to employment relationships such as employees, organisations, trade unions and the UK government.The goal of better work and working lives is very important for the different parties.
This is a significant aspect of the body, because it has distinguished itself as a representative organ for public policy alone, rather than political interest.The body conducts research on all aspects that touch on the working life, ranging from recruitment to productivity, the balance of life and work and employment law.