| 翻訳と辞書 |
| James v Redcats (Brands) Ltd ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
James v Redcats (Brands) Ltd
''James v Redcats (Brands) Ltd'' () (IRLR 296 ) is a legal case on the definition of a worker under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that lack of "mutuality of obligation" does not affect the status of being an employee, and therefore coverage under the 1998 Act.
==Facts==
Ms James worked for Redcats (Brands) Ltd, a postal company,〔(Redcats Couriers ) home page on the web〕 as a courier. She was making a claim that she was not being paid a minimum wage, and as a preliminary point, it needed to be determined whether she was a "worker" under s 54(3) of the 1998 Act. Redcats argued that she was "self-employed" and therefore not protected by the legislation.
Ms James used her own car to deliver parcels. Redcats set delivery deadlines and gave detailed instructions on how to carry out her duties. The first tribunal held there was only a contract for services (i.e. self-employed) not of service (i.e. not a 'worker') because there was no so called "mutuality of obligation". Redcats did not promise her any particular amount of work, said the tribunal and she could always decline it. At the Employment Appeal Tribunal Ms James argued this was simply untrue and there was an obligation to accept work.
抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
■ウィキペディアで「James v Redcats (Brands) Ltd」の詳細全文を読む
スポンサード リンク
| 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース |
Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.
|
|