O’Kelly v Trusthouse Forte Ltd [1983] ICR 728
Judgement for the case O’Kelly v Trusthouse Forte Ltd
Table Of Contents
Some waiters were engaged by a hotel on the zero hours basis (hotel didn’t have to offer work and waiters didn’t have to take it). Two tried to form a union and were sacked.
They (Plaintiffs) argued that trade union legislation prevented them from being sacked for organising a union. The legislation only related to employees. Plaintiffs were paid weekly, had their uniforms and equipment provided by hotel, disciplinary procedures were in place, and holiday pay was available.
CA held that the waiters were not employees and therefore not entitled to the legislative protection.
Sir John Donaldson MR
They did not, technically, have to turn up to work for a shift, and they could be sacked at any time, so that the contract lacked "mutuality of obligation" and could not be described as one between an "employee" and "employer".
He therefore concluded that the waiters were in business on their own account.
For Further Study on O’Kelly v Trusthouse Forte Ltd
Labour Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge...
Need instant answers? Our AI exam tutor is here to help.
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 StartedSimilar Cases
Related Product Samples
These 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) |
Labour Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge...
Since 2010, Oxbridge Notes has been a trusted education marketplace, supplying high-quality materials from top achievers at universities like Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Harvard, and Yale.