[ad_1]
employee is involved Cairns v Visteon UK Ltd [2007], had been employed as an administrative assistant from 1998 to 29 May 2005. From the point about 2001, had been an employee services provided by the agency. The agency, M, had employed worker under a contract of service. In May of 2005, was a matter of whether the employee has forged timesheets her. The employer use these timesheets to pay employee M.
M conducted an investigation and concluded that the employee may not be dishonest. Even so, the employer refused to continue to work with the employee, and purchase order for her services was withdrawn. M then tried to transfer an employee without success. Therefore, the job of the employee terminated by M.
employee brought a claim before the employment tribunal alleging that she had been unfairly dismissed by the employer. The main issue discussed by the court was whether the service employee has been granted a contract. The tribunal concluded that, while the existence of an employment contract between the employee and M, it would have taken on the need to indicate agreement between the employee and the employer.
Despite the decision of the tribunal refused to find such implicit agreement in this matter. Their reasoning for this was that there was no authority to support the proposition that such an agreement could be implied between the worker and the end-user where there existed a contract between the employee and the organization. It was also held that the adoption of testing necessary for the indication of the employment contract between the employee and the employer had not been made out.
employee’s claim was dismissed and she appealed the Employment Appeal. Tribunal
employee submitted the following:
§ Court had erred in finding that there was a contract for services between M and employee meant that it could not be a contract of service between employer and employee; and
§ Tribunal had not properly considered the issue of the need
her appeal was dismissed the following :.
§ If the contract between the employee and the agency was one for the service, it might be possible to imply a contract of employment between the worker and the end-users in order to provide employee protection under the Employment Rights Act 1996. However, as employee was employed by the establishment, and, when protected by employment law in 1996, there was no reason to extend this protection and other co-employer. The employee had been hired by M under a contract of service and its arguments in support of indirect agreement between themselves and the employer seemed to be solely based on the assertion that her claim for unfair dismissal would have a greater chance of success against the employer. The tribunal had therefore been entitled to imply an employment contract between the employee and the employer.
§ To contract the services implied by behavior on the basis of necessity, it was necessary to demonstrate that the conduct of the employee and the employer had been consistent only with being a contract for services between them.
In this case, however, it would have been open to the Tribunal to conclude that the conduct of the employee and the employer has been equally consistent with employee service available to the employer
under the terms of the contract for services between the employee and M; and
commercial terms of the contract made between M and the employer concerning the services of the employee.
Accordingly, it was believed that the tribunal had properly considered the issue of necessity.
If you require further information please contact us at enquiries@rtcoopers.com or Visit http://www.rtcoopers.com/practice_employment.php
© RT COOPERS, 2007. This Briefing Note does not provide a comprehensive or complete statement of the law on issues discussed nor does it include legal advice. It is intended to highlight general issues. Always sought expert legal advice in relation to certain conditions.
[ad_2]