Legal actions...
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Legal actions...
U.K. Pilots Union Considers Legal Action Over Contract Workers - Bloomberg
Please disregard if posted somewhere else.
Please disregard if posted somewhere else.
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."
"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."
Welcome to the power of parliament over common law:
BBC News - Agency workers' rights explained
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In a far better place
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
There are several countries at the moment looking into these tax evading loop holes,
Supply teachers caught in offshore tax row: Taxpayers 'lose millions because staff are employed by foreign firms' | Mail Online
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Milano
Age: 53
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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...
Join Date: May 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,904
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: HON121º/14 NM
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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:
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?
- 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?