Monday, February 10, 2020
Airfix Footwear LTD v. Cope  ICR 1210 Case Study
Airfix Footwear LTD v. Cope  ICR 1210 - Case Study Example It is irrelevant in the case observed in the paper whether the individual daily contracts were separate employment or not. The IT concluded that no individual contracts existed between the worker and the company. The company only delivers work sporadically from time to time, and from time-to-time the worker chooses to do it, so that there is a pattern of an occasional week done a few times a year, then it might well be that there comes into existence on each of these occasions a separate contract of service or contract for services, but the overriding arrangement is not itself a contract of employment, either of services or for services. But these matters must depend upon the facts of each particular case. This case confirms the view that an "umbrella" contract can exist if a practice of dealing has been built up over the years with expectations and obligations on each side. It was only in respect of the overall contract that the question of mutuality of obligation came into effect, and in this particular case, it was considered that this obligation was so overpowering that it meant that no individual contracts had existed. However, it is often difficult to establish the necessary ongoing mutuality of obligation to change a series of short-term contracts into a single "umbrella" contract. In this case, the IT denied the worker's claim because the worker is not obligated to accept the work and the provider is not under any obligation to consistently provide the work to the worker. In order for the 'worker' to be classified as an 'employee', the case must be able to pass the test for employee status. In this case, the company does not have or is not in a position to exercise any control over the worker. "The more control the supervisor or employer can exercise, the more likely the worker will be deemed an employee. Temporary workers engaged through employment agencies have for a number of years been a popular choice for UK businesses. The benefits to businesses o f engaging a flexible labor resource have been tangible. The resource can, in theory, be turned on and off at will, without the problems associated with headcount, the need for redundancy procedures or risk of unfair dismissal. In short, temporary agency workers have proved a cost-efficient resource to end-user businesses. For an employment contract to exist, as a minimum the following ingredients must be met; first a contract between the parties, second, an element of control over the worker and third, a mutuality of obligation between the worker and the employer. Up until 2004, most cases considered by the courts found that whilst there may be sufficient control exercised by the hiring end user over the worker and mutuality of obligation, there was no actual contract between the worker and the end user. In contrast, the courts found that whilst there was a contract between the agency and the worker, there was insufficient mutuality of obligation or control by the agency over the w orker for it to be an employment contract. The consequence was the worker was not employed by either the agency or the hiring end user. It soon became obvious to the court that the base was not broad enough, using merely mutuality of obligation as the test. It broadened its scope of the test by including the concept of control of the worker.