{"id":29788,"date":"2018-02-20T23:50:30","date_gmt":"2018-02-20T23:50:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/writemyessayfree.com\/workers"},"modified":"2017-08-12T07:45:42","modified_gmt":"2017-08-12T07:45:42","slug":"workers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/workers\/","title":{"rendered":"\u2018WORKERS\u2019"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n ‘
\n ‘
\n March 21, 2017<\/time>\n <\/div>\n

<'\">
\n <\/i>0<\/span><\/a>\n <\/div>\n

\n <\/span> <\/span> 0<\/span> <\/a>\n <\/div>\n
\n <\/span>
\n Services<\/a>\n <\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n

\u2018WORKERS\u2019<\/h2>\n

\u2018WORKERS\u2019(1) For Equality Law
Equality Act 2010<\/p>\n

83 Interpretation and exceptions<\/p>\n

\u2026 (2) \u201cEmployment\u201d means\u2013<\/p>\n

(a) employment under a contract of employment, a contract of apprenticeship or a contract personally to do work;<\/p>\n

This is much wider than for \u2018employee\u2019, incl self-employed.
In Quinnen v Hovells [1984] ICR 525, (EAT), at p 532, Waite. J. said that:<\/p>\n

\u2018those who engage, however cursorily, the talents, skills or labour of the self-employed\u2019 must ensure there is no discrimination in their appointment, terms or dismissal.<\/p>\n

Jivraj v Hashwani [2011] IRLR 827 (SC)<\/p>\n

\u2018[34] \u2026 The essential questions \u2026 are \u2026 whether, on the one hand, the person concerned performs services for and under the direction of another person in return for which he or she receives remuneration or, on the other hand, he or she is an independent provider of services who is not in a relationship of subordination with the person who receives the services.\u2019<\/p>\n

See: Christopher McCrudden \u2018Two views of subordination: the personal scope of employment discrimination law in Jivraj v Hashwani\u2019 (2012) 41 ILJ 30; Mark Freedland, Nicola Kountouris, \u2018Employment equality and personal work relations \u2013 a critique of Jivraj v Hashwani\u2019 (2022) 41 ILJ 56.<\/p>\n

*Note on Jirraj v Hashwani
Employment Law Bulletin: Emp. L.B. 2013, 113(Feb), 3-5.<\/p>\n

Bates van Winkelhof v Clyde & Co LLP [2014] 1 WLR 2047 (SC)<\/p>\n

Lady Hale: \u201839 I agree with Maurice Kay LJ that there is not \u201ca single key to unlock the words of the statute in every case\u201d. There can be no substitute for applying the words of the statute to the facts of the individual case. There will be cases where that is not easy to do. But in my view they are not solved by adding some mystery ingredient of \u201csubordination\u201d to the concept of employee and worker.\u2019<\/p>\n

Equality Act 2010 does not cover volunteers: X v Mid-Sussex Citizens Advice Bureau
[2012] UKSC 59.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

Share this:<\/h3>\n
\n