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