- This topic has 1 reply, 2 voices, and was last updated 7 years ago by
.
- Posts
Market investigation Ltd vs Minister of social security
Facts: Market researcher interviewer worked on and off under a series of contracts where she interviewed for company according to interview instructions issued by company , she had to complete work within specified period but otherwise had no specified hours of work. There was no provision for holiday or sick pay and she was free to work for others while working for the company.
It was held in the above case that the worker was an employee rather than independent contractor. Can you please explain why the worker is empoyee here, inspite of the fact that there was no provision for holiday or sick pay and she was free to work for others also. Also working hours were not fixed.. These factors must be considered while using economic reality test. So why these factors are ignored here?
The Court held that Anne Irving was an employee for the purpose of National Insurance contributions, despite ‘a limited discretion as to when she should do the work.’
She could control some of the way she carried out the work, BUT NOT ENTIRELY and therefore she could not be said to be in business ‘on her own account’.
The judge said that previous cases have suggested that the fundamental test to be applied is: ‘Is the person who has engaged himself to perform these services performing them as a person in business on his own account?’.
If the answer is ‘Yes’, then the contract is a contract for services.
If the answer is ‘No’, then the contract is a contract of service”.
And in the case of Anne Irving, the answer had to be “No” and she was therefore in a contract of service
OK?
- The topic ‘Economic reality test case’ is closed to new replies.