Legal actions...

[Griffin]

U.K. Pilots Union Considers Legal Action Over Contract Workers - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-03/u-k-pilots-union-considers-legal-action-over-contract-workers.html)


Please disregard if posted somewhere else.

[racedo]

Doomed to failure as would be seen as Restraint of Trade but if they wish to enrich Lawyers then sure the Lawyers will not object.

[Checkboard]

Restraint of trade is a common law doctrine relating to the enforceability of contractual restrictions on freedom to conduct business. In an old leading case of Mitchell v Reynolds (1711) Lord Smith LC said,[1]

"it is the privilege of a trader in a free country, in all matters not contrary to law, to regulate his own mode of carrying it on according to his own discretion and choice. If the law has regulated or restrained his mode of doing this, the law must be obeyed. But no power short of the general law ought to restrain his free discretion."

Restraint of trade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restraint_of_trade)

Welcome to the power of parliament over common law:
BBC News - Agency workers' rights explained (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15131557)

[Dan Winterland]

Fisrt, they have to examine the murky area as to who is a contractor and who is an employee. I think it's here the contractor's case will fail.

[captjns]

Three years later? Why did it take so long to consider such a long road.

Probably a cheaper endeavour to find the land of Oz which is heard is someplace over the rainbow. Probably cheaper than handing one's pot of gold over to the lawyers too. Who knows one may find the the little gnome wearing a black pointed hat and shoes fashioned from pints of Guiness glasses.

[wiggy]

There are several countries at the moment looking into these tax evading loop holes,

Not recommending the newspaper the story comes from, but even so it seems to be an increasingly common form of "employment".



Supply teachers caught in offshore tax row: Taxpayers 'lose millions because staff are employed by foreign firms' | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2227905/Supply-teachers-caught-offshore-tax-row-Taxpayers-lose-millions-staff-employed-foreign-firms.html)

[Dg800]

Fisrt, they have to examine the murky area as to who is a contractor and who is an employee. I think it's here the contractor's case will fail.

I think there is nothing murky about it. A single person who is the sole company owner and the sole employee and who only has one contract with one client (and is also bound by said contract not to have any other clients for the duration of his "engagement") is just an employee by another name. It's just a matter of time before the lawmakers close this legal loophole, the will to do so is there and has never been stronger as in the current climate, with whole countries on the verge of defaulting on their debts unless supported by other countries.

[Poose]

This practice is referred to as 'disguised employment' and is prohibited by the HMRC rule called IR35...
A lapdancer from Stringfellows has just won a landmark case against the club... apparently the practice of 'disguised employment' is rife across lap dancing... Or so I'm told - not that I'm an expert on such establishments... ;)

Let's hope this is the end of these spurious contracts and the start of permanent contracts with the correct Ts & Cs/Employment Rights... :D:D

[Superpilot]

A single person who is the sole company owner and the sole employee and who only has one contract with one client (and is also bound by said contract not to have any other clients for the duration of his "engagement") is just an employee by another name.

And that's about the crux of it. FTLs limit the usefulness of any contracting pilot and therefore airline's are forced to put into writing that the contractor cannot work elsewhere. Unlucky for them :ok:

What the likes of EZY are getting away with today is not illegal in any sense it's just mass exploitation of a loop hole.

[Firestorm]

I spoke to the Revenue about this subject quite recently in light of something that I was being offered. It is allowed, and is legal, but the person I spoke to said that they don't particularly like it, it is in the letter, but not the spirit of the law. That doesn't help us pilots much, and I don't know that a legal case will get very far, but I wish those who are bringing it good luck.

[Poose]

In a nutshell, half of the Flexicrew guys and most of the Ryanair bods have been forced into a state of 'disguised employment'.

In line with the definition of an employee or self-employed (see below pulled straight from the HMRC website under IR35); I would imagine that individuals at Ryanair etc. could legitimately claim employment.
Decide for yourselves folks...

"Employed or self-employed?"

In order to answer this question it is necessary to determine whether the person works under a contract of service (employees) or under a contract for services (self-employed, independent contractor). For tax and NICs purposes, there is no statutory definition of a contract of service or of a contract for services. What the parties call their relationship, or what they consider it to be, is not conclusive. It is the reality of the relationship that matters.
In order to determine the nature of a contract, it is necessary to apply common law principles. The courts have, over the years, laid down some factors and tests that are relevant, which is included in the overview below.
As a general guide as to whether a worker is an employee or self-employed; if the answer is 'Yes' to all of the following questions, then the worker is probably an employee:

Do they have to do the work themselves?
Can someone tell them at any time what to do, where to carry out the work or when and how to do it?
Can they work a set amount of hours?
Can someone move them from task to task?
Are they paid by the hour, week, or month?
Can they get overtime pay or bonus payment?
If the answer is 'Yes' to all of the following questions, it will usually mean that the worker is self-employed:

Can they hire someone to do the work or engage helpers at their own expense?
Do they risk their own money?
Do they provide the main items of equipment they need to do their job, not just the small tools that many employees provide for themselves?
Do they agree to do a job for a fixed price regardless of how long the job may take?
Can they decide what work to do, how and when to do the work and where to provide the services?
Do they regularly work for a number of different people?
Do they have to correct unsatisfactory work in their own time and at their own expense?

The self-employed section doesn't really lend itself to a commercial pilot's role now, does it?? ;)