Employment contract in English law

Last updated

In English law, an employment contract 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.

Contents

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. [1] 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.

A can factory worker in 1909 Can factory workers crimping on can ends, published 1909.jpg
A can factory worker in 1909

UK courts have agreed that an employment contract is one of a specific type, and that it cannot be equated with a commercial agreement. [2] 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. [3] 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’, [4] 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, [5] additional tests of employment were developed. Multiple factors, including how much one could be said to be ‘integrated’ into the business, [6] 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. [7] 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. [8] Another view stated that the employment relationship had to be one where there was an ongoing obligation to offer and accept work. [9] 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 in certain cases a taxi cab driver. [10]

Mutuality of obligation

Employment rights

Employee
Worker

Construction of employment

Express terms

Once a person's work contract is categorised, the courts have specific rules for determining, beyond the statutory minimum charter of rights, what are its terms and conditions. Analogous rules for incorporation of terms, and implication terms exist as in the ordinary law of contract, however in ‘’Gisda Cyf v Barratt’’, Lord Kerr emphasised that this process of construction is one that must be “intellectually segregated” from the general law of contract, because of the relation of dependency an employee has. [11] In this case, Ms Barratt was told her employment was terminated in a letter that she opened 3 days after its arrival. When, 3 months and 2 days after arrival, she lodged an unfair dismissal claim, the employer argued it was time barred on the ground that in ordinary contract law one is bound by a notice when a reasonable person would have read a message. The Supreme Court held that Ms Barratt was in time for a claim because she was only bound by the notice when she actually read it. The applicable in employment was different, given the purpose of employment law to protect the employee. From formation to termination, employment contracts are to be construed in the context of statutory protection of dependent workers.

Incorporation of terms

The terms of employment are all those things promised to an employee when work begins, so long as they do not contravene statutory minimum rights. In addition, terms can be incorporated by reasonable notice, for instance by referring to a staff handbook in a written employment agreement, [12] or even in a document in a filing cabinet next to the staff handbook. [13] While without express wording they are presumed not binding between the union and employer, [14] a collective agreement may give rise to individual rights. The test applied by the courts is to ask loosely whether its terms are ‘apt’ for incorporation, and not statements of ‘policy’ or ‘aspiration’. Where the collective agreement's words are clear, a "last in, first out" rule was held to potentially qualify, but another clause purporting to censure compulsory redundancies was held to sound like it was binding ‘in honour’ only. [15]

Implied terms favouring employees

In addition to statutory rights, expressly agreed terms and incorporated terms, the contractual hallmark of the employment relation is the series of standardised implied terms (or terms implied in law) that accompany it. In addition to individualised implied terms that the courts construe to reflect the reasonable expectations of the parties, [16] the courts have long held that employees are owed additional obligations, such as a safe system of work [17] and payment of wages even when the employer has no work to offer. [18] Reflecting more recent priorities, employers have also been recognised to have a duty to inform their employees of their workplace pension rights, [19] although they have stopped short of requiring employers to give advice on qualifying for workplace disability benefits. [20] The key implied term, however, is the duty of good faith, or “mutual trust and confidence”. This is a flexible concept that is applied in a broad variety of circumstances leading to remedies in damages or an injunction, such as to require employers do not act in an authoritarian manner, [21] call employees names behind their back, [22] treat workers unequally when upgrading pay, [23] run the company as a front for international crime, [24] or exercise discretion to award a bonus capriciously. [25] There is tension among judges about the extent to which the core implied term of mutual trust and confidence can be 'contracted out of', with the House of Lords having held that the parties are "free" to do so, while others approach the question as a matter of construction of the agreement which is within exclusive judicial competence to define. [26]

The second, and older hallmark of the employment contract is that employees are bound to follow their employers’ instructions while at work, so long as that does not contravene statute or their agreed terms. Every employment relation leaves the employer with a residue of discretion, historically expressed as the ‘master-servant’ relationship. Today, in practice, this leaves the employer with the ability to vary the terms of work in accordance with business need. [27] The courts have allowed this to continue, so long as it does not contradict a contract's express terms, which always require an employee's consent, [28] or renegotiation of a collective agreement. [29] However, it has also been held that employers may insert ‘flexibility clauses’ allowing them to reserve the right to vary any contract term. [30] The limits of the courts’ tolerance of such practices are evident if they touch procedures for accessing justice, [31] or potentially if they would contravene the duty of mutual trust and confidence.

Implied terms favouring employers

Performance, breach and termination

Part performance

Theory of employment

The ‘Hawthorne Experiment’ was originally whether changes in light might affect worker productivity in tests carried out at the Hawthorne Works, Illinois from 1924 to 1932. The observers realised that workers might try to work harder when lights went dimmer simply because they knew they were being observed. When people felt like they were being notice or consulted with, productivity went up even more.

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ Lawrie-Blum v Land Baden-Württemberg (1986) Case 66/85, [1986] ECR 2121; Pfeiffer v Deutsches Kreuz, Kreisverband Waldshut eV (2005) C-397/01, [2005] IRLR 137
  2. ↑ Johnson v Unisys Ltd [2001] IRLR 279, [20] 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.’
  3. ↑ ERA 1999 s 23
  4. ↑ Yewens v Noakes (1880) 6 QBD 530; R v Negus (1873) LR 2 CP 34
  5. ↑ See National Insurance Act 1946 s 1(2)
  6. ↑ Cassidy v Minister of Health [1951] 2 KB 343, Stevenson, Jordan & Harrison Ltd v MacDonald & Evans [1952] 1 TLR 101, Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaart NV v Slatford [1953] 1 QB 248, 295, Denning LJ, ‘It depends on whether the person is part and parcel of the organisation.’
  7. ↑ ’’Montreal v Montreal Locomotive Works’’ [1947] 1 DLR 161, 169, per Lord Wright, and ‘’Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister for Pensions and National Insurance’’ [1968] 2 QB 497, 515, per MacKenna J.
  8. ↑ Nethermere (St Neots) Ltd v Gardiner [1984] IRLR 240, Dacas v Brook Street Bureau (UK) Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 217
  9. ↑ O’Kelly v Trusthouse Forte plc [1983] ICR 730, [1983] 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 [1978] ICR 1210
  10. ↑ Astra Emir (15 November 2016). "Uber drivers found to be 'workers' not employees". OUPblog. Oxford University Press. Retrieved 21 November 2016.
  11. ↑ [2010] UKSC 41, [39]
  12. ↑ e.g. French v Barclays Bank plc [1998] IRLR 646
  13. ↑ Harlow v Artemis International Corp Ltd [2008] EWHC 1126 (QB), [2008] IRLR 629
  14. ↑ Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 s 179
  15. ↑ Contrast Alexander and Wall v Standard Telephones & Cables Ltd (No 2) [1991] IRLR 287 and Kaur v MG Rover Group Ltd [2004] EWCA 1507
  16. ↑ See Attorney General of Belize v Belize Telecom Ltd [2009] UKPC 10
  17. ↑ Wilsons and Clyde Coal Ltd v English [1938] AC 57 and Johnstone v Bloomsbury Health Authority [1991] 2 All ER 293
  18. ↑ Devonald v Rosser & Sons [1906] 2 KB 728
  19. ↑ Scally v Southern Health and Social Services Board [1992] 1 AC 294
  20. ↑ Crossley v Faithful & Gould Holdings Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 293
  21. ↑ Wilson v Racher [1974] ICR 428
  22. ↑ ’’The Post Office v Roberts’’ [1980] IRLR 347
  23. ↑ ’’Transco plc v O’Brien’’ [2002] EWCA Civ 379
  24. ↑ ’’Mahmud and Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA’’ [1998] AC 20
  25. ↑ ’’Mallone v BPB Industries plc’’ [2002] EWCA Civ 126
  26. ↑ Contrast Lord Steyn in ’’Mahmud and Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA’’ [1998] AC 20 and Lord Browne-Wilkinson VC in Johnstone v Bloomsbury Health Authority [1991] 2 All ER 293
  27. ↑ e.g. ‘’Cresswell v Board of Inland Revenue’’ [1984] ICR 508
  28. ↑ ’’Rigby v Ferodo Ltd’’ [1988] ICR 29
  29. ↑ ’’Robertson v British Gas Corp’’ [1983] ICR 351
  30. ↑ e.g. ‘’Bateman v Asda Stores Ltd’’ [2010] IRLR 370
  31. ↑ ’’Wandsworth London Borough Council v D’Silva’’ [1998] IRLR 193
  32. ↑ Personnel Today, Trust me, I’m an implied term, published 1 March 2003, accessed 19 April 2021

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United Kingdom labour law</span>

United Kingdom labour law regulates the relations between workers, employers and trade unions. People at work in the UK have a minimum set of employment rights, from Acts of Parliament, Regulations, common law and equity. This includes the right to a minimum wage of £11.44 for over-23-year-olds from April 2023 under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. The Working Time Regulations 1998 give the right to 28 days paid holidays, breaks from work, and attempt to limit long working hours. The Employment Rights Act 1996 gives the right to leave for child care, and the right to request flexible working patterns. The Pensions Act 2008 gives the right to be automatically enrolled in a basic occupational pension, whose funds must be protected according to the Pensions Act 1995. Workers must be able to vote for trustees of their occupational pensions under the Pensions Act 2004. In some enterprises, such as universities or NHS foundation trusts, staff can vote for the directors of the organisation. In enterprises with over 50 staff, workers must be negotiated with, with a view to agreement on any contract or workplace organisation changes, major economic developments or difficulties. The UK Corporate Governance Code recommends worker involvement in voting for a listed company's board of directors but does not yet follow international standards in protecting the right to vote in law. Collective bargaining, between democratically organised trade unions and the enterprise's management, has been seen as a "single channel" for individual workers to counteract the employer's abuse of power when it dismisses staff or fix the terms of work. Collective agreements are ultimately backed up by a trade union's right to strike: a fundamental requirement of democratic society in international law. Under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 strike action is protected when it is "in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute".

In employment law, constructive dismissal occurs when an employee resigns due to the employer creating a hostile work environment. This often serves as a tactic for employers to avoid payment of statutory severance pay and benefits. In essence, although the employee resigns, the resignation is not truly voluntary but rather a response to intolerable working conditions imposed by the employer. These conditions can include unreasonable work demands, harassment, or significant changes to the employment terms without the employee’s consent.

In United Kingdom law, the concept of wrongful dismissal refers exclusively to dismissal contrary to the contract of employment, which effectively means premature termination, either due to insufficient notice or lack of grounds. Although wrongful dismissal is usually associated with lack of notice sometimes it can also be caused by arbitrary dismissal where no notice was required but certain grounds were specified in the contract as being the only ones available but none existed.

Unfair dismissal in the United Kingdom is the part of UK labour law that requires fair, just and reasonable treatment by employers in cases where a person's job could be terminated. The Employment Rights Act 1996 regulates this by saying that employees are entitled to a fair reason before being dismissed, based on their capability to do the job, their conduct, whether their position is economically redundant, on grounds of a statute, or some other substantial reason. It is automatically unfair for an employer to dismiss an employee, regardless of length of service, for becoming pregnant, or for having previously asserted certain specified employment rights. Otherwise, an employee must have worked for two years. This means an employer only terminates an employee's job lawfully if the employer follows a fair procedure, acts reasonably and has a fair reason.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Equal Pay Act 1970</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Equal Pay Act 1970 was an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that prohibited any less favourable treatment between men and women in terms of pay and conditions of employment. The act was proposed by the then Labour government, and was based on the Equal Pay Act of 1963 of the United States. It has now been mostly superseded by part 5, chapter 3 of the Equality Act 2010.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Transfer of Undertakings Regulations 2006 known colloquially as TUPE and pronounced TU-pee, are the United Kingdom's implementation of the European Union Transfer of Undertakings Directive. It is an important part of UK labour law, protecting employees whose business is being transferred to another business. The 2006 regulations replace the old 1981 regulations which implemented the original Directive. The law has been amended in 2014 and 2018, and various provisions within the 2006 Regulations have altered.

Sir Patrick Elias, PC, is a retired Lord Justice of Appeal.

United Kingdom employment equality law is a body of law which legislates against prejudice-based actions in the workplace. As an integral part of UK labour law it is unlawful to discriminate against a person because they have one of the "protected characteristics", which are, age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, race, religion or belief, sex, pregnancy and maternity, and sexual orientation. The primary legislation is the Equality Act 2010, which outlaws discrimination in access to education, public services, private goods and services, transport or premises in addition to employment. This follows three major European Union Directives, and is supplement by other Acts like the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Furthermore, discrimination on the grounds of work status, as a part-time worker, fixed term employee, agency worker or union membership is banned as a result of a combination of statutory instruments and the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, again following European law. Disputes are typically resolved in the workplace in consultation with an employer or trade union, or with advice from a solicitor, ACAS or the Citizens Advice Bureau a claim may be brought in an employment tribunal. The Equality Act 2006 established the Equality and Human Rights Commission, a body designed to strengthen enforcement of equality laws.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Employment Rights Act 1996</span> United Kingdom Law

The Employment Rights Act 1996 is a United Kingdom Act of Parliament passed by the Conservative government to codify existing law on individual rights in UK labour law.

<i>Nethermere (St Neots) Ltd v Gardiner</i> United Kingdom employment law court case

Nethermere Ltd v Gardiner And Another [1984] ICR 612 is a UK labour law case in the Court of Appeal in the field of home work and vulnerable workers. Many labour and employment rights, such as unfair dismissal, in Britain depend on one's status as an "employee" rather than being "self-employed", or some other "worker". This case stands for the proposition that where "mutuality of obligation" between employers and casual or temporary workers exists to offer work and accept it, the court will find that the applicant has a "contract of employment" and is therefore an employee.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">English contract law</span> Law of contracts in England and Wales

English contract law is the body of law that regulates legally binding agreements in England and Wales. With its roots in the lex mercatoria and the activism of the judiciary during the Industrial Revolution, it shares a heritage with countries across the Commonwealth, from membership in the European Union, continuing membership in Unidroit, and to a lesser extent the United States. Any agreement that is enforceable in court is a contract. A contract is a voluntary obligation, contrasting to the duty to not violate others rights in tort or unjust enrichment. English law places a high value on ensuring people have truly consented to the deals that bind them in court, so long as they comply with statutory and human rights.

United Kingdom agency worker law refers to the law which regulates people's work through employment agencies in the United Kingdom. Though statistics are disputed, there are currently between half a million and one and a half million agency workers in the UK, and probably over 17,000 agencies. As a result of judge made law and absence of statutory protection, agency workers have more flexible pay and working conditions than permanent staff covered under the Employment Rights Act 1996.

Vicarious liability in English law is a doctrine of English tort law that imposes strict liability on employers for the wrongdoings of their employees. Generally, an employer will be held liable for any tort committed while an employee is conducting their duties. This liability has expanded in recent years following the decision in Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd to better cover intentional torts, such as sexual assault and deceit. Historically, it was held that most intentional wrongdoings were not in the course of ordinary employment, but recent case law suggests that where an action is closely connected with an employee's duties, an employer can be found vicariously liable. The leading case is now the Supreme Court decision in Catholic Child Welfare Society v Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools, which emphasised the concept of "enterprise risk".

Crossley v Faithful & Gould Holdings Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 293 is an English contract law case, concerning implied terms in employment contracts.

Mutual trust and confidence is a phrase used in English law, particularly with reference to contracts in UK labour law, to refer to the obligations owed in an employment relationship between the employer and the worker.

<i>Buckland v Bournemouth University Higher Education Corp</i>

Buckland v Bournemouth University [2010] EWCA Civ 121 is a UK labour law case, concerning unfair dismissal, now governed by the Employment Rights Act 1996.

<i>Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher</i>

Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher [2011] UKSC 41 is a landmark UK labour law and English contract law case decided by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, concerning the scope of statutory protection of rights for working individuals. It confirmed the view, also taken by the Court of Appeal, that the relative bargaining power of the parties must be taken into account when deciding whether a person counts as an employee, to get employment rights. As Lord Clarke said,

the relative bargaining power of the parties must be taken into account in deciding whether the terms of any written agreement in truth represent what was agreed and the true agreement will often have to be gleaned from all the circumstances of the case, of which the written agreement is only a part. This may be described as a purposive approach to the problem.

Collective action in the United Kingdom including the right to strike in UK labour law is the main support for collective bargaining. Although the right to strike has attained the status, since 1906, of a fundamental human right, protected in domestic case law, statute, the European Convention on Human Rights and international law, the rules in statute have generated significant litigation. The "right of workers to engage in a strike or other industrial action" is expressly recognised in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 section 180, and has been recognised repeatedly by the Court of Appeal as "a fundamental human right"., and the House of Lords.

<i>Transco plc v OBrien</i>

Transco plc v O'Brien[2002] EWCA Civ 379 is a UK labour law case concerning the contract of employment.

<i>Uber BV v Aslam</i> British labour law case

Uber BV v Aslam [2021] UKSC 5 is a landmark case in UK labour law and company law on employment rights. The UK Supreme Court held the transport corporation, Uber, must pay its drivers the national living wage, and at least 28 days paid holidays, from the time that drivers log onto the Uber app, and are willing and able to work. The Supreme Court decision was unanimous, and upheld the Court of Appeal, Employment Appeal Tribunal, and Employment Tribunal. The Supreme Court, and all courts below, left open whether the drivers are also employees but indicated that the criteria for employment status was fulfilled, given Uber's control over drivers.

References

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.