| 翻訳と辞書 |
| James v. Greenwich LBC ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
James v Greenwich LBC
''James v Greenwich London Borough Council'' () (EWCA Civ 35 ) is a UK labour law case, concerning implied contracts for workers who work through employment agencies. Its judgment may be open to reinterpretation given the more recent Supreme Court decision by Lord Clarke in ''Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher''.
==Facts==
Mrs James had worked for Greenwich Council (through a Brook Street plc subsidiary) for three years. She had begun with one agency, but then had changed to a different agency. She signed a new ‘temporary worker agreement’. The agencies paid her based on weekly timesheets. She was dismissed after she apparently took sick leave for two months without informing the agency or the council for her reasons. When Mrs James returned, she had been replaced. She claimed that she was unfairly dismissed.
The Employment Tribunal held that Mrs James did not have the requisite mutuality of obligation to support a contract existing between her and the local council, and a contract of service could not be implied. This meant she was not even an employee, and so that whether or not she was in fact fairly dismissed, under the ERA 1996 sections 94 and 230 she had no right to claim at all. Mrs James argued that this was a perverse finding, and the fact that she was an employee was the only one that matched the practical reality of the work relationship.
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 Greenwich LBC」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.
|
|