Governing Body of Clifton Middle School v Askew

Last updated

Governing Body of Clifton Middle School v Askew
Town hall ealing 804.JPG
London Borough of Ealing were named as respondents
CourtCourt of Appeal
Full case nameChristopher Askey v (1) Governing Body of Clifton Middle School, and (2) London Borough of Ealing
Decided20 July 1999
Citation(s)[1999] EWCA Civ 1892, [2000] ICR 286
Transcript(s) BAILII
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Peter Gibson LJ, Ward LJ, Chadwick LJ
Keywords
Employee, TUPE regulations

Governing Body of Clifton Middle School v Askew [1999] EWCA 1892 is a UK labour law case, concerning the scope of protection for employees.

Contents

Facts

Teachers had contracts of employment with the council. Their services were managed by the governors of the school, operating through the head teacher. The school was reorganised, to eliminate the first and middle schools, and create a new primary school. Mr Chris Askew was dismissed for redundancy and not offered a job at the replacement primary school. He argued there was a transfer under the Transfer of Undertakings Directive 77/187/EC. He said that although he had no employment contract with the governing body, he did have an employment relationship under the Directive. The Council argued that it was the employer in both the old and new school so there was no transfer.

Judgment

The Court of Appeal held that there was no employment relationship. Peter Gibson LJ said an employment relationship comprised a contractual relation, but not necessarily one of employment. Ward LJ said it required the existence of legal rights and obligations that are capable of transfer. But they did not need to come from a contract, rather than some other source.

Chadwick LJ dissented in part, and thought that a source for Mr Askew's rights were found in the Education (Modification of Enactments Relating to Employment) Order 1989 (SI 1989/901).

See also

Notes

    Related Research Articles

    European Union law Rules operating within EU member states

    European Union law is a system of rules operating within the member states of the European Union. Since the founding of the European Coal and Steel Community following World War II, the EU has developed the aim to "promote peace, its values and the well-being of its peoples". The EU has political institutions, social and economic policies, which transcend nation states for the purpose of cooperation and human development. According to its Court of Justice the EU represents "a new legal order of international law".

    United Kingdom labour law Labour rights in the UK

    United Kingdom labour law regulates the relations between workers, employers and trade unions. People at work in the UK can rely upon a minimum charter of employment rights, which are found in Acts of Parliament, Regulations, common law and equity. This includes the right to a minimum wage of £9.50 for over-23-year-olds from April 2022 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.

    <i>Carmichael v National Power plc</i>

    Carmichael v National Power plc [1999] UKHL 47 is a British labour law case on the contract of employment for the purpose of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

    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.

    The Agency Workers Regulations 2010 are a statutory instrument forming part of United Kingdom labour law. They aim to combat discrimination against people who work for employment agencies, by stating that agency workers should be no less favourably treated in pay and working time than their full-time counterparts who undertake the same work. It gives effect in UK law to the European Union's Temporary and Agency Workers Directive.

    Ahmad v United Kingdom (1982) 4 EHRR 126 is a UK labour law and UK constitutional law case on race and religious discrimination. It upholds the view that special allowances do not need to be made by employers for people who want to follow particular religious practices, because people are free to choose their jobs. However, it suggests that employers should give genuine and serious consideration about ways to accommodate their employees requests, even if they cannot ultimately do so.

    European labour law regulates basic transnational standards of employment and partnership at work in the European Union and countries adhering to the European Convention on Human Rights. In setting regulatory floors to competition for job-creating investment within the Union, and in promoting a degree of employee consultation in the workplace, European labour law is viewed as a pillar of the "European social model". Despite wide variation in employment protection and related welfare provision between member states, a contrast is typically drawn with conditions in the United States.

    <i>Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp</i>

    Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp [1978] ICR 221 is a UK labour law case, concerning unfair dismissal, now governed by the Employment Rights Act 1996.

    <i>Alemo-Herron v Parkwood Leisure Ltd</i>

    Alemo-Herron v Parkwood Leisure Ltd (2013) C-426/11 is an EU law and UK labour law case concerning whether an employer may agree to incorporate a collective agreement into an individual contract, and if that agreement has a provision for automatic updating of some terms, whether that transfers under the Transfer of Undertakings Regulations 2006. The UK Supreme Court referred to the European Court of Justice the question whether national courts could give a more favourable interpretation to legislation than had been given by German courts.

    An employment contract in English law 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.

    <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.

    <i>Henry v London Greater Transport Services</i>

    Henry v London Greater Transport Services Ltd[2002] EWCA 488 is a UK labour law case concerning the scope of protection for people to employment rights. It took the view that an employment contract requires

    <i>Cable & Wireless plc v Muscat</i>

    Cable & Wireless plc v Muscat [2006] EWCA Civ 220 is a UK labour law case, concerning the test for an implied contract between an employee and a place they work through an employment agency. It holds that with reference to the reality of the relationship, an implied contract should be found according to the ordinary rules of construction.

    <i>Muschett v HM Prison Service</i>

    Muschett v H M Prison Service [2010] EWCA Civ 25 is a UK labour law case, which held that an agency worker had no right to claim discrimination from either the agency or the place of work.

    <i>French v Barclays Bank plc</i>

    French v Barclays Bank plc [1998] EWCA Civ 1092 is a UK labour law case concerning the contract of employment. It held that changing a staff manual can breach the term of mutual trust and confidence that is implied into every individual contract of employment, and a unilateral change to a workplace practice can breach that contract.

    Wilson v St Helens Borough Council [1999] 2 AC 52 is a UK labour law case concerning transfers of undertakings, and the job security rights of employees.

    University of Oxford v Humphreys is a UK employment law case concerning transfers of undertakings, and the job security rights of employees. It is authority for the proposition that, if an employee objects to a proposed change, he or she can be in a good position to claim constructive dismissal.

    <i>Miles v Wakefield Metropolitan District Council</i>

    Miles v Wakefield Metropolitan District Council[1987] UKHL 15 is a UK labour law case, concerning the theory of partial performance and strike action. Its authority has been questioned since.

    <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.

    <i>IWGB v CAC</i>

    Independent Workers of Great Britain Union v Central Arbitration Committee [2021] EWCA Civ 952 is a UK labour law case, concerning sham self-employment and the human right to unionise and collectively bargain.

    References