Forms of working relationships

HideShow resource information

1. What was the outcome of Sharma v Manchester?

  • Court held that day one rights were to be revoked and imposed a six week qualifying period before one can bring a claim for less favourable treatment
  • Court held that the part time work in itself does not have to be the sole reason for the less favourable treatment
  • Court held that the part time work itself is the only reason why a part time worker can bring a claim for less favourable treatment
1 of 20

Other questions in this quiz

2. What is the main issue with agency workers?

  • There is a contract for the agency workers with the agency but there is no personal service requirements or control so there is no employment relationship
  • There is no contractual arrangement with the end client, only one with the agency but this means there will never be an employment relationship
  • There is no contractual arrangement with the end client so the issue is who the agency workers are paid
  • There are no rights for agency workers as they are not employees

3. What is the key case for the test of control?

  • Nethermere (St Neots) Ltd v Gardiner
  • Ready Mixer Concrete Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance
  • Carmichael v National Power
  • Troutbeck SA v White

4. WHat was the outcome in Brook St Bureau v Dacas?

  • Dacas was held to be an employee as she was paid by the agency.
  • The court held that Dacas was not an employee but a worker as she satisfied the three requirements under the test from Bryne Bros v Baird
  • The court held that Dacas was not an employee because she did not officially have an employer. The Council had a contract with the agency, not Dacas, and the agency simply paid Dacas but did not have any employment contract with them
  • The court held that Dacas not an employee as there was no mutuality of obligation

5. What was the outcome in Carmichael v National Power

  • Mrs C was held to be an employee as she only refused work on 17/18 occassions in six years so the court wanted to be nice to her
  • Mrs C was not held to be an employee as she did not have a contract
  • Mrs C was not held to be an employee as there was no mutuality of obligation - the employer did not have to provide her with work and she did not have to accept it.
  • Mrs C was held to be an employee as she was an employee when she accepted work and the court bridged together the gaps when she refused to work

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Employment law resources »