Employment Law: Differences Between Workers and Contractors

This essay delves into the intricacies of employment law, focusing on the distinctions between employees, workers, and independent contractors. It explores the significance of contracts in establishing the employer-employee relationship, particularly in light of Brexit's impact on employment. The essay outlines the essential elements of a valid employment contract and contrasts the rights and responsibilities of employees versus independent contractors, including aspects such as employment law coverage, hiring practices, tax benefits, and working time regulations. Furthermore, it examines the case of Pimlico Plumbers Ltd. v. Smith, highlighting the legal classification of workers. The essay also analyzes the role of statute laws, emphasizing the importance of express and implied terms, as well as the legal implications for employers and employees, including the duty of care under the Law of Torts Act and the implications of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1992 and the Equality Act 2010. The essay concludes by emphasizing the need for mutual consent and the protection of employee rights within the employment context.

EMPLOYMENT LAW

Contents
EMPLOYMENT LAW.........................................................................................................................3

EMPLOYMENT LAW
It refer to such laws which is mainly stipulated in respect of building the strong
relationship between the employer and employee to maintain discipline and loyalty at work
place. As various state and federal laws are stipulated in respect of protecting the right of the
workers in the organization. Government imposed various norms in respect of managing the
working of the organization as health and safety of the employees, prevent the activities
related to discrimination and also working under the equality act1. It is also stated if any
workers feel that their right are violated or infringed in respect of attaining any task, than they
carry the right to file the suit for compensation under the employment rights act, 1996. In this
essay, the discussion is undertaken regarding outlining the difference between the workers
and independent contractors working under the common and statue norms. It also carried the
implication regarding to examining the legal position for the employers and employed staff.
As in respect of understanding the difference between the employees, workers and
individual contractors, it determines in wider ways. In context of business, it is managed by
maintaining the relationship between the employer and employee through signing the
contract in respect of considering to be the part of the business2. During the time of Brexit,
the norms are imposed in respect of restricting the employees to travel in different
countries in respect of getting jobs. As if any person demanded to be the part of the
business, they had to enter into the contract of employment with the company. In respect of
entering into any contract, it is necessary to fulfill 4 basic essential elements such as offer,
acceptance, promise and Intention to create legal relations. After examining all the
conditions, both the person decided to enter into the contract regarding considering the
employment contract valid.
The role of the employees and individual contractors are same as they both are
appointed under the same pay scale. But the difference between the two are relies on various
points such as in case of following the employment laws, for employees they are covered
under the employment and labor laws but in case of independent contractors, they are not
covered under the employment and labor laws3. In respective of hiring practices, employees
enjoy the rights in respect of getting accurate pay scale, salary benefits and other monetary
benefits such as availing the benefits under the National Minimum Wages Act, 1998. In point
of view of individual contractors, they not carry any right instead of dealing with the
supervisors regarding understanding the work to be committed. The employees enjoy the tax
benefits in the business regarding deduction some amount in respective of security of their
life and also gets benefits under the Pensions Act, 19954. But in case of individual contractors
1 Cabrelli, D., 2016. Employment Law in Context: Text and Materials. Oxford
University Press.
2 Fagan, C. and Rubery, J., 2018. Advancing gender equality through European
employment policy: the impact of the UK's EU membership and the risks of
Brexit. Social Policy and Society. 17(2). pp.297-317.
3 Freedland, M. and Dhorajiwala, H., 2019. UK response to new trade Union strategies
for new forms of employment. European Labour Law Journal. 10(3). pp.281-290.
4 Cruz, K., Hardy, K. and Sanders, T., 2017. False Self‐Employment, Autonomy and
Regulating for Decent Work: Improving Working Conditions in the UK Stripping

they are not liable to get any relief on tax benefits. Employees time period are fixed regarding
attaining the work for the particular time period which is also mentioned under the Working
time regulation, 1998. In respect of contractors, they are not bound by such time limit and
also they work as per their own flexibility and time limit.
The difference between the workers and employees is that employee refers to the
individual person which entered into the contract of employment with the owners whereas in
case of workers, they are not liable to bound by any of the norms stated by the organization.
They are individual and also work as per their own rules and regulation5. Thus, workers are
not obliged to perform any task as per the stated guidance, they carry the right to reject or
accept any offer, if it deemed fit in their perspective.
This is stated with the case of Pimlico Plumber Ltd. V Mr. Smith [2018] UKSC 29 as
in this case the issues is raised regarding considering Mr. smith as employee or worker of the
company. As the case stated that Mr. Smith before accepting the offer of the Pimlico plumber
stated two major condition, firstly considered him as self-employed in respect of getting relief
under the tax and VAT. Secondly he can itself terminate the contract if the work is over. In
2011, Smith suffered with the heart attack which results in facing unfair dismissal from the
jobs6. Thus, decision are made in respect of considering Mr. Smith as workers under the
section 230(3) of the employment right act, 1996. They are also treated to be equal under the
Equality act, 2010.
In respect of statue laws, it is stated that certain laws are implied by the government
which is bound upon the companies to follow it in right directions. It is related to the express
and implied terms. Statue laws refers to such laws which are written in the constitution and
also imposed upon the country to follow it accordingly. In relation to the express terms, it is
stated that such terms which are mentioned in the contract and also obliged by the employees
to follow it. It is related to the salary which is mentioned under the National Minimum Wages
act, 1998. It implies that every person are bound to pay the salary regarding the work
committed7. Company is not obliged to deduct the amount in return of work committed.
Express terms are also linked under the Pension Act, 1995 and also continuous amendments
are done in respect of protecting the right of the person once they committed the age of
getting pension set by the government.
There is an exception to this rule that the employees can neglect to commit such work
if they feel that such work resulting in affecting their rights or any breach is undertaken in
respect of entering into such contract8. This is explained with the case of Martin V Solus
Schall [1979] EAT stated that Martin is appointed to accomplish the task which is unfair in
Industry. British Journal of Industrial Relations. 55(2). pp.274-294.
5 Haines, A., 2018. UK considers closer links between employment and tax
rules. International Tax Review.
6 Pimlico Plumbers Ltd & Mullins v Smith [2018] UKSC 29. 2020. [Online]. Available
through: < https://www.magdalenchambers.co.uk/pimlico-plumbers-ltd-mullins-v-
smith-2018-uksc-29-2/>.
7 Hope, S and et.al., 2017. Effects of child long-term illness on maternal employment:
longitudinal findings from the UK Millennium Cohort Study. The European Journal
of Public Health. 27(1). pp.48-52.

terms of business but by offering higher value to commit the task as per the set direction. As
per the judgment given by the court, martin carry the right to file the suit the company
regarding rejecting such offer and also file suit in case of committing illegal offences in
business.
In case of implied terms, it is stated that such terms which are not necessary to be
entered into the contract but it carry the equal importance to be fulfilled. It is mainly
supported with the case of Scally V southern Health and social services Board [1992] 1 AC
294, as in this case the issues is raised regarding not informing properly about the right of
undertaking the right of pension after attaining the period of 60 years. As Health and service
board internally decide and make changes regarding the pension policy and not inform to the
doctors9. They currently are not in position to commit more task. Thus, judgment raised in
respect of breach committed under the contractual terms regarding providing accurate
pension.
The legal implication of the employer and employee at work place us that employer c
carry the duty to work under the Tort Act, in which they are obliged to perform the duty in
respect of taking care of employees if they are working at any hazardous places. Under the
Law of torts act, 1977 stated that owners carry the responsibility in respect of providing the
duty of care regarding securing from dealing in any hazardous places10. It is also stated that if
they commit breach in any of the terms, they are obliged to pay compensation in exchange of
the losses committed. At last causation or damages which is paid on the bases of actual
damages incurred to parties. This is explained with the case of Donoghue V Stevenson [1932]
UKHL stated that the case reflects the matters of negligence of performing the duty as per the
stated directions. As dead snail is found in the drinks of Mrs. Donoghue which is
manufactured by Mr. Stevenson. Thus, results raised in respect of duty of negligence during
the time of manufacturing the products11. In such manner, judgment is given in respect of
paying compensation for the losses incurred.
Thus, in respect of undertaking the legal position between the employer and employee
at work places, it is necessary to carry the mutual consent before changing any policies in the
contract. In business, it is necessary to imposed express terms regarding working under the
stated direction which is imposed by the government12. As employer duty is to maintain
8 Koukiadaki, A. and Katsaroumpas, I., 2017. Temporary contracts, precarious
employment, employees’ fundamental rights and EU employment law.
9 S C A L L Y V S O U T H E R N H E A L T H A N D S O C I A L S E R V I C E S B O A R D :
H L 1 9 9 1 . 2020. [Online]. Available through: < https://swarb.co.uk/scally-v-
southern-health-and-social-services-board-hl-1991/>.
10 Lewis, D. and Sargeant, M., 2019. Employment law: the essentials. Kogan Page
Publishers.
11 Case Summary of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] A.C. 562, [1932] UKHL 100, 1932
S.C. (H.L.) 31, 1932 S.L.T. 317, [1932] W.N. 139.The doctrine of negligence. 2020.
[Online]. Available through: < https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/donoghue-v-
stevenson.php>.
12 Morrison, K., 2019. HR Theory and Employment Law. Mellor, R.(Ed.) Management
for Scientists, Emerald Publishing Limited. pp.129-145.

discipline at work place and also not impose any such norms which resulting in bringing
conflict between the employees. Employer are also legally bound in respect of giving proper
notice before dismissing any employees in respect of not performing as per the stated task. As
it is necessary that their rights are protected under the employment Right act, 199613. This is
supported with the case of Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher [2011] as in this case the matter is stated
to prove the statement as in case of workers or employee, they carry the right to get protected
by the employees if they attaining any task in the work place14.
The legal implication imposed in respect of working under the norms mentioned
under the Trade union and Labor relations Act, 1992. As in this, employers provide the
liberty to employees to carry the right to vote in respect of selecting any impotent decision for
the company. As their opinion are equivalent in respect of taking any decision relating to
pension or right to collective bargaining. This is explained with the case of Breen V
Amalgamated engineering union [1971] as this case reflects the mattes of infringing the right
to vote in the election instead of carrying the right to vote regarding the misappropriation
with the union funds15. Thus, judgment support the case of Breen regarding carrying the right
to vote and support the fair decisions.
Under the equality act, 2010, it is stated that every person carry the right to work and
live freely and also no discrimination is undertaken in respect of differentiating between any
person on the bases of caste, sex, religion, region etc16. As most of the companies not
accepting the employees which belong to different countries and also not engaging with
them in respect of any type of contract. Mainly this act is applied is case of employees
facing disability, then also equal treatment is given and also additional flexibility is given to
attain the work in better way. This is explained with the case of Chacon Navas V Eurest
Colectividades SA [2006] As in this suit, the mattes reflects of the unfair dismissal through
facing the disability of attaining the task. The judgment is raised in respect of unfair
dismissal, as Navas is facing issues in accomplishing the work as per the set guidance17.
It is also examined that government gives the right to employers to dismiss any person
without giving notice of dismissal. In most of the cases, the dismissal are undertaken in
respect of facing any issues regarding infringing the right of the company or also employees
13 Williams, S. and Scott, P. eds., 2016. Employment relations under coalition
government: The UK experience. 2010-2015. Routledge.
14 Case Comment: Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher & Ors [2011] UKSC 41. 2020. [Online].
Available through: <http://ukscblog.com/case-comment-autoclenz-limited-v-belcher-
and-others-2011-uksc-41/>.
15 BREEN v. AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION AND OTHERS. 2020.
[Online]. Available through: <
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/eb021948/full/html>.
16 Teague, P. and Donaghey, J., 2018. Brexit: EU social policy and the UK employment
model. Industrial Relations Journal. 49(5-6). pp.512-533.
17 ERT Case Summary: Chacón Navas v. Eurest Colectividades SA. 2020. [Online].
Available through: < https://www.equalrightstrust.org/content/ert-case-summary-chac
%C3%B3n-navas-v-eurest-colectividades-sa>.

carry the right to file the suit under the employment right act, 199618. Thus, in case of
dismissal, appropriate opportunities are given to the employee to present their views and
reason behind conducting the offences. After that, limited time period is given to serve the
notice period which is undertaken by the employee during the contract of employment19. The
impact of Brexit is undertaken in respect of changes in working polices and also
flexibility in working hours. But due to variation in government norms, few polices are
strict and also affecting the rights of the person in wider ways. This is supported with the
case of Edwards V Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2011] as in this case
the issue is raised in respect of wrongful dismissal from the post of surgeon. As the
appropriate opportunity is given to prove the innocence and also he didn’t allow to serve the
notice period20. Thus, the judgment is raised in respect of giving adequate reason to prove
him innocence in return of the illegal offences imposed on him.
From the above study, the report concludes the matters relating to working under the
employment law which helps in building the strong relationship between the employer and
employee. As employer carry the duty in respect of working under the law of torts whatever
its employee, workers and individual contractor. It is also concluded that the legal implication
are imposed which the employer carry the duty to manage the interest of the employees at
work place.
18 Rose, E. and Busby, N., 2017. Power relations in employment disputes. Journal of
Law and Society. 44(4). pp.674-701
19 Zahn, R., 2018. The impact of Brexit on employment law in Scotland.
20 E D W A R D S V C H E S T E R F I E L D R O Y A L H O S P I T A L N H S
F O U N D A T I O N T R U S T : S C 1 4 D E C 2 0 1 1 . 2020. [Online]. Available
through: < https://swarb.co.uk/edwards-v-chesterfield-royal-hospital-nhs-foundation-
trust-sc-14-dec-2011/>.