Worker v home worker, Lapsed warnings, TUPE transfers
We are seeing a series of important decisions from the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) addressing key points in modern employment law. Much emphasis is on the statutory procedures, as seen in previous briefings, but this month the focus is on three decisions of President Elias on fundamental issues of longer-standing law.
THE WORKER DEFINITION
James v Redcats (Brands) Ltd [2007] UKEAT 475/06, [2007] All ER (D) 270 (Feb) is a rare example of the worker definition having to be considered in the context of a national minimum wage (NMW) claim—as opposed to the more usual context of working time, particularly holiday pay. While the statutory definition is the same, the NMW provenance did have one specific effect towards the end of the judgment, given by Elias P sitting alone.
The question was whether a parcel courier delivering for the respondent was a ‘worker’ or alternatively a ‘home worker’, under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 (NMWA 1998),
s 35, for the purpose
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=16d9dd3d_1)
