183:(3) The force of (2) is not lost in cases where - following what appears to be a common (though potentially confusing) practice - the agency and the temporary worker have committed themselves to standard terms and conditions which are intended to apply both to the general engagement and to the individual stints worked under it. The only result of that fusion is that the same conditions will have to be interpreted from a different perspective, according to whether they are being considered in the context of the general engagement or in the context of a single assignment. That does not make the task of the tribunals any easier, and is liable to lead to the unsatisfactory consequence that the same condition may need to be given a different significance in the one context from that accorded to it in the other. Those disadvantages do not, however, supply any valid reason for denying the temporary worker or the contractor the right to have the issue of contractual status judged separately in the two contexts.
216:(3) Weighing the Conditions in the way that the law requires, there is to be set on the one side (contract for services) the express statement that the worker is to be regarded as self-employed and not to be working under a contract of service; and the liberty reserved to the worker of being able to work on a self-employed basis for a particular client. On the other (contract of service) side are to be set the reservation of a power of dismissal for misconduct; the power of the contractor to bring any assignment to an end; the provision of a review procedure if such termination takes place; the establishment of a grievance procedure; the importation referred to in (1) above; and the stipulation of an hourly pay rate, which is subject to deductions for unsatisfactory time-keeping, work, attitude, or misconduct.
39:
213:(2) The conditions (3, 6, 9 and the first sentence of 5) excluding mutuality of obligation are irrelevant in this context. That is not to say that in the different context of a general engagement they would be without effect. They might there turn out to be of crucial - even decisive - importance. In the circumstances of a specific engagement, however, there is nothing on which they can operate. When it comes to considering the terms of an individual, self-contained, engagement, the fact that the parties are not be obliged in future to offer - or to accept - another engagement with the same, or a different, client must be neither here nor there.
210:(1) The importation of common law duties by the latter part of condition 5 favours the inference of a contract of service, because even though the notional importation of a master servant relationship is expressed to apply in the first instance only as between the temporary worker and the client, the sub-paragraphs of the condition contain a number of instances where there is a duality of duty owed both to the client and to the contractor....
180:(2) There is nothing inherently repugnant, whether to good relations in the workplace or in law, about a state of affairs under which, in an employment agency case, the status of employee of the agency is allocated to a temporary worker in respect of each assignment actually worked - notwithstanding that the same worker may not be entitled to employee status under his general terms of engagement....
219:(4) When those indications are set against each other, and the specific engagement is looked at as a whole in all its terms, the general impression which emerges is that the engagement involved in this single assignment gave rise - despite the label put on it by the parties - to a contract of service between the temporary worker and the contractor.
172:(1) In a case like the present where the money claimed is related to a single stint served for one individual client, it is logical to relate the claim to employment status to the particular job of work in respect of which payment is being sought. I note that the editors of Harvey appear to take a similar view, where they suggest (at para A ):
143:. He had no written contract, but received a job description for each work assignment. He had agreed ‘to fulfil the normal common law duties which an employee would owe to an employer so far as they are applicable’ The Department of Employment refused his claim, saying he was an ‘independent contractor’.
191:
The issue is whether the individual assignment worked by Mr McMeechan for
Sutcliffe Caterers for a period of four days during January 1992, in respect of which he claims his unpaid remuneration, did or did not amount to a contract of service in its own right. That is a question which, though it
168:
Lord Meston's fundamental submission that no claim to single-stint employee status as between the temporary worker and the contractor is maintainable in law has already been stated. I would reject it for the following reasons:
146:
The
Employment Tribunal held he was not an employee, and so was not entitled to claim. Mummery J in the Employment Appeal Tribunal held he was an employee of the employment agency. The Secretary of State appealed.
176:".....the better view is not whether the casual worker is obliged to turn up for, or do, the work but rather if he turns up for, and does the work, whether he does so under a contract of service or for services."
207:
Those must, however, be construed according to the context afforded by a specific, as opposed to a general, engagement. That requires them to be interpreted, in my judgment, as follows:
614:
380:
132:
366:
619:
609:
340:
555:
112:
38:
488:
446:
406:
269:
49:
158:
held that Mr McMeechan was an employee of the agency for this period and so he could claim from the
Secretary of State for unpaid wages.
394:
252:
128:
139:
section 182). Mr McMeechan worked as a caterer, through an employment agency named Noel
Employment Ltd, for Sutcliffe Catering in
502:
284:
474:
418:
111:
case concerning the scope of protection for people to employment rights. It took the view that an agency worker did have an
530:
460:
354:
298:
312:
194:
245:
90:
516:
289:
302:
200:
155:
124:
204:
IRLR 236) is one which largely falls to be determined on the interpretation of the
Conditions.
580:
565:
326:
238:
17:
104:
464:
67:
506:
492:
534:
520:
450:
436:
432:
274:
603:
570:
560:
544:
108:
575:
478:
344:
330:
316:
422:
230:
115:
for the purpose of claiming for unpaid wages on an employer's insolvency.
136:
140:
123:
Mr McMeechan claimed £105.17 for four days of unpaid wages from the
234:
131:, after his employment agency went insolvent under the
84:
74:
63:
55:
45:
31:
382:Market Invest Ltd v Minister for Social Security
160:
133:Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978
246:
100:McMeechan v Secretary of State for Employment
32:McMeechan v Secretary of State for Employment
8:
192:remains essentially one of fact and degree (
188:B The Merits of the Single Engagement Claim
368:Ready Mixed Concrete Ltd v SS for Pensions
253:
239:
231:
37:
28:
615:Court of Appeal (England and Wales) cases
341:Clyde & Co LLP v Bates van Winkelhof
556:Contract of employment in English law
7:
489:Dacas v Brook Street Bureau (UK) Ltd
447:Lane v Shire Roofing Co (Oxford) Ltd
407:Nethermere (St Neots) Ltd v Gardiner
270:Lawrie-Blum v Land Baden-Wurttenberg
165:A. Is it maintainable at all ?
50:Court of Appeal of England and Wales
80:Waite LJ, Potter LJ and McCowan LJ
25:
503:Muscat v Cable & Wireless Plc
223:Potter LJ and McCowan LJ agreed.
129:Secretary of State for Employment
285:Pfeiffer v Deutsches Rotes Kreuz
620:1996 in United Kingdom case law
475:Carmichael v National Power plc
419:Lee Ting Sang v Chung Chi-Keung
610:United Kingdom labour case law
395:O’Kelly v Trusthouse Forte plc
1:
531:Muschett v H M Prison Service
461:McMeechan v SS for Employment
18:McMeechan v SS for Employment
355:Cassidy v Minister of Health
162:THE SINGLE ENGAGEMENT CLAIM
105:[1996] EWCA Civ 1166
636:
299:Employment Rights Act 1996
261:Workplace protection cases
541:
527:
513:
499:
485:
471:
457:
443:
429:
415:
403:
391:
377:
363:
351:
337:
323:
309:
296:
281:
266:
89:
79:
36:
313:Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher
221:
178:
91:Contract of employment
70:, IRLR 461, IRLR 353
517:James v Greenwich LBC
174:
135:section 122 (now the
113:employment contract
125:National Insurance
581:German labour law
566:UK insolvency law
551:
550:
327:Jivraj v Hashwani
96:
95:
16:(Redirected from
627:
383:
369:
255:
248:
241:
232:
198:at page 124 and
59:11 December 1996
41:
29:
21:
635:
634:
630:
629:
628:
626:
625:
624:
600:
599:
594:
589:
552:
547:
537:
523:
509:
495:
481:
467:
453:
439:
425:
411:
399:
387:
381:
373:
367:
359:
347:
333:
319:
305:
292:
277:
262:
259:
229:
153:
121:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
633:
631:
623:
622:
617:
612:
602:
601:
598:
597:
593:
590:
588:
585:
584:
583:
578:
573:
568:
563:
558:
549:
548:
542:
539:
538:
528:
525:
524:
514:
511:
510:
500:
497:
496:
486:
483:
482:
472:
469:
468:
458:
455:
454:
444:
441:
440:
433:Hall v Lorimer
430:
427:
426:
416:
413:
412:
404:
401:
400:
392:
389:
388:
378:
375:
374:
364:
361:
360:
352:
349:
348:
338:
335:
334:
324:
321:
320:
310:
307:
306:
297:
294:
293:
282:
279:
278:
267:
264:
263:
260:
258:
257:
250:
243:
235:
228:
225:
195:O'Kelly's case
152:
149:
127:Fund, via the
120:
117:
94:
93:
87:
86:
82:
81:
77:
76:
72:
71:
65:
61:
60:
57:
53:
52:
47:
43:
42:
34:
33:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
632:
621:
618:
616:
613:
611:
608:
607:
605:
596:
595:
591:
586:
582:
579:
577:
574:
572:
571:EU labour law
569:
567:
564:
562:
561:UK labour law
559:
557:
554:
553:
546:
545:UK labour law
540:
536:
533:
532:
526:
522:
519:
518:
512:
508:
505:
504:
498:
494:
491:
490:
484:
480:
477:
476:
470:
466:
465:EWCA Civ 1166
463:
462:
456:
452:
449:
448:
442:
438:
435:
434:
428:
424:
421:
420:
414:
409:
408:
402:
397:
396:
390:
385:
384:
376:
371:
370:
362:
357:
356:
350:
346:
343:
342:
336:
332:
329:
328:
322:
318:
315:
314:
308:
304:
300:
295:
291:
287:
286:
280:
276:
272:
271:
265:
256:
251:
249:
244:
242:
237:
236:
233:
226:
224:
220:
217:
214:
211:
208:
205:
203:
202:
197:
196:
189:
186:
184:
181:
177:
173:
170:
166:
163:
159:
157:
150:
148:
144:
142:
138:
134:
130:
126:
118:
116:
114:
110:
109:UK labour law
106:
102:
101:
92:
88:
83:
78:
75:Case opinions
73:
69:
68:EWCA Civ 1166
66:
62:
58:
54:
51:
48:
44:
40:
35:
30:
27:
19:
576:US labor law
529:
515:
507:EWCA Civ 220
501:
493:EWCA Civ 217
487:
473:
459:
445:
431:
417:
405:
393:
379:
365:
353:
339:
325:
311:
283:
268:
222:
218:
215:
212:
209:
206:
199:
193:
190:
187:
185:
182:
179:
175:
171:
167:
164:
161:
154:
145:
122:
99:
98:
97:
26:
535:EWCA Civ 25
521:EWCA Civ 35
451:EWCA Civ 37
437:EWCA Civ 25
201:Lee v Chung
604:Categories
592:References
64:Citations
386:2 QB 173
372:2 QB 497
358:2 KB 343
290:C-397/01
227:See also
156:Waite LJ
151:Judgment
137:ERA 1996
85:Keywords
479:UKHL 47
410:ICR 612
398:ICR 730
345:UKSC 32
331:UKSC 40
317:UKSC 41
288:(2005)
275:C-66/85
273:(1986)
141:Swindon
56:Decided
423:UKPC 1
587:Notes
119:Facts
107:is a
103:
46:Court
543:see
303:230
606::
301:s
254:e
247:t
240:v
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
