Mr Ashley Stevenson
Tennie’s employment status
Both parties have signed a contract for service, this could be seen as an attempt to misrepresent their intentions and expectations. It would be the job of the courts to decide whether the written terms represent the true agreement (Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher and Ors), taking into consideration general contract law as well as the policies and practices of Yorkshire Footwear.
The multiple test
It must be necessary for Tennie to carry out work personally for Yorkshire Footwear and prove that she is not entitled to send a replacement to work in her place at her discretion. We are not fully aware of the circumstances that, in practice, finishers are allowed to provide replacements. The process of finding a replacement suggests a level of personal service is required as the employer requires notification and decides who is allowed to perform the finisher’s tasks. Yorkshire Footwear would have to show the differences between the policy here and the policies organisations use when providing cover for sick employees.
Mutuality of obligation must be recognised, this usually comes from analysing how the contract operates (Carmichael v National Power plc). It is expressly stated that a lack of obligation exists between the parties however the expected weekly output imposed on the finishers implies an obligation for Yorkshire Footwear to provide enough work so the finishers can meet their target. We are not told how long the expected output has been in place, if it has been operational since the start of Tennie’s contract with Yorkshire Footwear it could be an implied term in the contract through the behaviour of the parties. This could be judged a commitment to maintain the employment relationship over a period of time.
Self-employed workers are viewed as their own boss meaning they generate work on their own account. The recruitment process by which Tennie was hired suggests she was and still is reliant on Yorkshire Footwear to provide her employment. The provision of training and tools show the level of investment is greater from the employer than the finishers.
Contract Change
The new arrangements for the location of work and the payment of wages appear to be an attempt to incorporate new terms into the contract of the finishers.
Location
This change in location of work appears to be within the employer’s rights as the widely drawn term 1 of Annex A allows for flexibility in the future, imposing the change would not result in a breach of contract. If Yorkshire Footwear were established as the employer of the finishers they would have to provide Tennie with sufficient training and support, failure to do so would result in a breach of mutual trust and confidence.
These new terms would have significant influence in determining Tennie’s