leave.
Thus the Directive must be interpreted as precluding any national law or practice whereby entitlement to paid annual leave is lost on the death of a worker without conferring an entitlement to an allowance in lieu of any leave outstanding.
Tribunal guidance on Contracts of Employment
17 June 2014
The Employment Tribunal has ruled on whether an express contract of employment can exist in the absence of an agreement to remunerate the individual for work provided to the company.
We are grateful to Daniel Barnett for this summary of the EAT decision in Ajar-Tec Ltd v Stack.
Mr Stack, a shareholder and director of Ajar-Tec, provided work to the company under no formal employment arrangement and for no remuneration. The Employment Judge held that there was an express agreement that Mr Stack would do work for the company and an implied term that he would be paid a reasonable amount for that work. He concluded that Mr Stack was both an employee and a worker. Allowing the appeal, the EAT (HHJ Birtles presiding) held that an express agreement that the claimant would do work for the company does not amount to a binding express contract if there is no consideration for such a promise, of which there was none in this case. The employment tribunal failed to apply Tilson v Alston Transport to determine whether, in the alternative, an implied contract of employment existed. In the absence of either an express or implied contract of employment, it was an error of law to find an implied term as to remuneration.
The case was remitted to a fresh employment tribunal to determine whether a contract of employment could be inferred on the facts.
Employment Appeal Tribunal decides on the status of a football referee
20 June 2014
A recent Employment Appeal Tribunal decision on the employment status of a football referee provides some useful guidance on the factors which should determine status distinctions.
We are grateful to Daniel Barnett for providing this summary of the decision:
In Conroy v Scottish Football Association a football referee lodged a claim of unfair dismissal, age discrimination and holiday pay. The preliminary issue was whether Mr Conroy was an employee of the Scottish Football Association ('SFA') within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The SFA argued that he was self-employed. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) dismissed Mr Conroy's appeal and upheld the decision of the employment tribunal that he was not an employee for the purposes of the ERA 1996. However, he was held to be an employee for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 and a worker for the purposes of the Working Time Regulations 1998. The EAT held that the employment tribunal had properly considered all of the matters and found facts which could indicate employment, such as the provision of health insurance and the fact that referees are not entitled to send a substitute for any match.
CIPP Policy News Journal
08/04/2015, Page 109 of 521
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker