Employment Rights with the Company - Essay Example

Download file to see previous pages People who are new to the workforce and eager to secure a position with a company might not read the particular language of their agreement closely enough and could end up losing significant benefits. On the other end, companies that do not sufficiently monitor their casual or temporary employees may wind up with a great deal of litigation on their hands, based on claims for employment rights from their formerly casual employees.

Section 230 of the Employment Rights Act defines employee status in the following way: an “individual who has entered into or works under (or, where the employment has ceased, worked under) a contract of employment.” Any “contract of service or apprenticeship, whether express or implied, and (if it is express) whether oral or in writing” constitutes a contract of employment.

Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs Department has issued a fairly straightforward list of tests to determine whether or not a person is an employee of a company, and therefore deserving of employment rights, or is just a casual contractor. These questions come from the “economic reality” test of whether or not a person has achieved employee status, and are based on such case law as  Lee Ting Sang v Chung Chi-Keung [1990] IRLR 236.

The first question asks whether or not Aisha has to do all of her assigned work herself, or if a substitute can be used. Note the language from the case study: Aisha received a letter at the beginning of her employment, back in 2001, that emphasized that “once an engagement is undertaken, the worker must give priority to the Company.” This, of course, comes after the disclaimer that “[t]here will be occasions when no work is available.” The idea of giving “priority to the Company” does not suggest that Aisha would be permitted to find a substitute, or a subcontractor, to handle particular assignments for her, but instead suggests a personal commitment to handling the task for the company. In contrast, is the decision from the Employment Appeal Tribunal in the case Real-Time Civil Engineering LTD v. Mr. D. Callaghan. ...Download file to see next pages Read More