|
An employment contract in English law is a specific kind of contract whereby one person performs work under the direction of another. The two main features of a contract is that work is exchanged for a wage, and that one party stands in a relationship of relative dependence, or inequality of bargaining power. On this basis, statute, and to some extent the common law, requires that compulsory rights are enforceable against the employer. There are diverging views about the scope by which English law covers employees, as different tests are used for different kinds of employment rights, legislation draws an apparent distinction between a "worker" and an "employee", and the use of these terms are also different from their use in the European Court of Justice and European Union Directives. Under the Employment Rights Act 1996 section 230, an "employee" is anyone with a contract of service, which takes its meaning from a series of court cases that are also applicable for tax and tort law, where different judges have given different views about the meaning of the word. An "employee" is entitled to all types of rights that a worker has, but in addition the rights to reasonable notice before a fair dismissal and redundancy, protection in the event of an employer's insolvency or sale of the business, a statement of the employment contract, rights to take maternity leave or time off for child care, and an occupational pension. A "worker" is a broader concept in its statutory formulation, and catches more people, but does not carry as many rights. A worker means any person who personally performs work, and is not a client or a customer. A worker is entitled to a minimum wage, holidays, to join a trade union, all anti-discrimination laws, and health and safety protection. ==Scope of employment rights== As yet, the UK has not consolidated a comprehensive definition of the people to whom employment rights and duties apply. Statute and case law, both domestic and European, use 2 main definitions, with approximately six others. The EU does have one consolidated definition of a ‘worker’, which is someone who has a contract for work in return for a wage, and also stands as the more vulnerable party to the contract.〔''Lawrie-Blum v Land Baden-Württemberg'' (1986) Case 66/85, () ECR 2121; ''Pfeiffer v Deutsches Kreuz, Kreisverband Waldshut eV'' (2005) C-397/01, () IRLR 137〕 This reflects the kernel of classical labour law theory, that an employment contract is one infused with “inequality of bargaining power”, and stands as a justification for mandating additional terms to what might otherwise be agreed under a system of total freedom of contract. UK courts have agreed that an employment contract is one of a specific type, and that it cannot be equated with a commercial agreement.〔''Johnson v Unisys Ltd'' () IRLR 279, () Lord Steyn, ‘It is no longer right to equate a contract of employment with commercial contracts. One possible way of describing a contract of employment in modern terms is as a relational contract.’〕 However, UK statutes deploy two main definitions, of an ‘employee’ and a ‘worker’, with a different number of rights. The government may also pass secondary legislation to include specific groups of people into the ‘employee’ category.〔ERA 1999 (s 23 )〕 An ‘employee’ has all available rights (all the rights of a ‘worker’ but also child care, retirement and job security rights). The meaning is explicitly left to the common law under the main statute, the Employment Rights Act 1996 section 230, and has developed according to the classical 19th century contrast between a contract ‘of service’ and one ‘for services’. While the classical test was that an employee was subject to a sufficient degree of ‘control’,〔''Yewens v Noakes'' (1880) 6 QBD 530; ''R v Negus'' (1873) LR 2 CP 34〕 new forms of work where people were had greater autonomy outside the factory to choose how to do their jobs, meant that, particularly from the mid-20th century,〔See National Insurance Act 1946 s 1(2)〕 additional tests of employment were developed. Multiple factors, including how much one could be said to be ‘integrated’ into the business,〔''Cassidy v Minister of Health'' () 2 KB 343, ''Stevenson, Jordan & Harrison v MacDonald v Evans'' () 1 TLR 101, ''Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaart NV v Slatford'' () 1 QB 248, 295, Denning LJ, ‘It depends on whether the person is part and parcel of the organisation.’〕 or whether one metaphorically wore the ‘badge’ of the organisation, were looked at, with a focus, it was said on ‘economic reality’ and form over substance. Multiple relevant factors would include how much the employee was ‘controlled’, if they owned their tools, if they had the chance of profit and bore the risk of loss.〔’’Montreal v Montreal Locomotive Works’’ () 1 DLR 161, 169, per Lord Wright, and ‘’Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister for Pensions and National Insurance’’ () 2 QB 497, 515, per MacKenna J〕 But in the late 1970s and 1980s, some courts began to speak of a new test of ‘mutuality of obligation’. One view of this was merely that workers exchanged work for a wage.〔''Nethermere (St Neots) Ltd v Gardiner'' () IRLR 240, ''Dacas v Brook Street Bureau (UK) Ltd'' () EWCA Civ 217〕 Another view stated that the employment relationship had to be one where there was an ongoing obligation to offer and accept work.〔''O’Kelly v Trusthouse Forte plc'' () ICR 730, () IRLR 369 and ''James v Greenwich LBC''. This appeared to derive from M Freedland, ''The Contract of Employment'' (1976) 21-22 and first used in ''Airfix Footwear Ltd v Cope'' () ICR 1210〕 This led to cases where employers, typically of people on low wages and little legal understanding, pleaded that they had only hired a person on a casual basis and thus should not be entitled to the major job security rights. In addition, a ‘worker’ is defined in ERA 1996 section 230 as someone with a contract of employment or who personally performs work and is not a client or a customer. So this concept has greater scope, and protects more people, than does the term ‘employee’. This class of person is entitled to a safe system of work, a minimum wage and limits on working time, as well as discrimination and trade union rights, but not job security, child care and retirement rights. This concept thus reaches up to protect people who are quasi-self-employed professionals, albeit not so vulnerable, such as a home cleaner, or music teacher who visits student homes, or a taxi cab driver wearing a firm’s logo. *''Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher'' *''Jivraj v Hashwani'' () UKSC 40, arbitrators do not have employment contracts. *''Governing Body of Clifton Middle School v Askew'' () ICR 286, employment relationship *''Edmonds v Lawson'' () EWCA Civ 69, () IRLR 391, pupillage, not an apprentice? *''Mingeley v Pennock and Ivory (t/a Amber Cars)'' () EWCA Civ 328, taxi driver wearing the organisation’s badge *''Hall v Woolston Hall Leisure Ltd'' () (EWCA Civ 170 ), illegality does not lose someone discrimination protection *''Beloff v Pressdram Ltd'' () 1 All ER 241 *''Ferguson v John Dawson & Partners (Contractors) Ltd'' () (EWCA Civ 7 ), () 1 WLR 1213, Megaw LJ, declarations of employee status to be "wholly disregarded" *''Calder v H Kitson Vickers & Sons (Engineers) Ltd'' () ICR 232, 251, Ralph Gibson LJ says declarations are not conclusive, but relevant *''Newnham Farms Ltd v Powell'' (2003) EAT/0711/01/MAA, employment contract arising from conduct ;Mutuality of obligation *''Clark v Oxfordshire HA'' () IRLR 125 *''Hall v Woolston Hall Leisure Ltd'' () IRLR 578, dependent entrepreneur *''Consistent Group v Kalwak'' () EWCA Civ 430 *''Lemmerman v. A.T. Williams Oil Co.'', 350 S.E.2d 83 (1986) 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Employment contract in English law」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|