Topic 1: Case Law Flashcards
Yewens v Noakes [1880]
CONTROL TEST
-UK Court of Appeal had to determine employment status of servant.
-Person was an employee
if an employer could tell him not only what to do but how to do it.
-‘a servant is a person subject to the command of his master as to the manner in which he shall do his work’.
Roche v Kelly [1969] IR 100
APRROVED Y v N CONTROL TEST
- Breach of health and safety legislation, someone hired to construct a barn.
- Referred to control test in Y v N, determined he was working on his own accord, paid in one lump sum payment, he was a contractor,.
Re Sunday Tribune [1984] IR 505
INTEGRATION TEST
nature of work not important, but level of engagement with the employer. Daily meetings, salary, supervision etc.
Market Investigations Ltd v Minister for Social Security [1969] 2 QB 173
ENTREPRENEURIAL TEST: looks at whether the worker has engaged him/herself to perform the services performing them as a person in business on his/her own account?
O’Coindealbhain v Mooney [1990] 1 IR 422
ENTREPRENEURIAL TEST
Employment status of manager of social welfare office - status of employment?
Approved above test!
He was paid a fixed fee depending on volume of work.
He was in business for himself due to the control he had over his pay and role.
Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister for Pensions and National Insurance [1968] 2 QB 497
MACKENNA J - 3 STEP APPROACH:
(i) The servant agrees that in consideration of a wage or other remuneration he will provide his own work and skill in the performance of some service for his master,
(ii) he agrees, expressly or impliedly, that in the performance of that service he will be subject to the other’s control in a sufficient degree to make that other master,
(iii) the other provisions of the contract are consistent with its being a contract of service.
Henry Denny & Sons (Ireland) Ltd. trading as Kerry Foods v. Minister for Social Welfare [1998]
Worker hired to give samples of Denny products in supermarkets.
Agreements set out that she was an independent contractor not employee.
Trying to determine if she was an insurable person.
Social welfare decided she was.
Company appealed this decision – appeals officer rejected the appeal (worker was subject to control, discretion of & dismissal by the company) – decision reviewed & upheld by chief appeals officer.
Provision of equipment - points towards employee.
Stevenson Jordan and Harrison Ltd v MacDonald and Evans [1952] 1 TLR 101
The integration test was proposed by Denning LJ in this case:
“… under a contract of service a man is employed as part of the business, whereas under a contract for services, his work, although done for the business is not integrated into it but only accessory to it.”
Ryan v Shamrock Marine (Shannon) Ltd UD155/90, EAT,
Working elsewhere simultaneously - not always relevant to employment status, however, can point towards contract work.
Minister for Agriculture and Food v Barry [2009] 1 IR 215
Respondents worked as temporary veterinary inspectors, case had to determine their employment status.
Cork meat plant had to close down - TVIs said they needed redundancy payments & notice.
Held: TVIs were not employees because:
- Misread Denny case
- Tests cannot be applied in a formulaic way
- Mutuality of obligations between the parties - reciprocation of promises
- There is no one fundamental test
McAuliffe v Minister for Social Welfare[1995] 1 ILRM 189
Delivery drivers
Paid monthly based on remuneration
Could engage substitutes
Both owned their vehicles which they drove & were responsible for any driving expenses
Social welfare officer - employees this we appealed
Nature of engagement and mutuality of obligations
Level of control no there in terms of liabilities, other work, own vehicles
They were not employees
Karshan (Midlands) Ltd trading as Dominos Pizza v Revenue Commissioners [2022]
Contracts based on driver availability
Shift provided by employer - created mutuality of obligations
RCs deemed them as employers
Appealed - No obligation on Dominos to work
No mutuality of obligations - multiple contracts generated for each shift
Millen v Presbyterian Church in Ireland [2000]
Working for church and let go - tried to claim compensation for termination
He thought P60 meant employee - it did not
Tiernay v An Post [2000]
Plaintiff was a sub-postmaster. He provided his own premises, his income was performance-based and he employed an assistant.
Respondent dismissed the employee under his statutory powers. Tiernay challenged this decision.
Appeal to Supreme Court – held to be a contract for services – looked to other factors e.g. postmaster supplied his own premises, could employ others to assist in business & was taking on the risks of profit & loss in a business
