Plaintiffs worked as tour guides under a zero hours arrangement. They were paid only for the hours they worked, and tax and national insurance contributions were deducted, and their contracts described them as ‘casual’ workers.
HL said they were not employees (and hence couldn’t require terms of contract under s.1 ERA 1996) because there wasn’t sufficient mutuality of obligation.
To find a contract of service there had to be an ‘irreducible minimum of mutuality of obligation necessary to create a contract of service’ which wasn’t present here:
The documents contained no provisions governing when, how, or with what frequency guide work would be offered;
There were no provisions for notice of termination on either side;
The sickness, holiday and pension arrangements for regular staff did not apply;
Nor did the grievance and disciplinary procedures.
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get StartedThese product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.
Labour Law | Personal Scope Of Labour Law Notes (36 pages) |
Labour Law | The Employment Relationship Notes (71 pages) |