Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pension and National Insurance [1968] 2 QB 497 is a UK labor law case concerning the definition of a service contract, rather than a contract for a service. This distinction is important because many labor law rights under the 1996 Labor Rights Act require that plaintiffs have an "employee" status of under 230. Employees are defined as persons by employment contract, and that is defined as a service contract (or apprenticeship). This is the main case. A senior British judge has stated that employment status is a legal matter. This statement needs to be understood as clarifying that the parties to the contract have no clear power to determine and agree (in contract) that the contract is a job, or not work. This decision, in which dispute, is a matter of the courts.
Video Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance
Fakta
Thomas Latimer had worked for Ready Mixed Concrete Ltd as a batcher page from 1959 to 1963. The company delivered the concrete thing, but had a policy of hiring an independent contracting company to do the carriage because according to their policy documents, this allowed
"Fast and efficient bottlenecks, good truck maintenance, and careful driving, and will benefit owner-drivers by giving them an incentive to work for higher returns without abusing vehicles in a way that often happens if employees are given bonus schemes related to vehicle use her employer. "
But they became dissatisfied with their contractors and began offering work to the current staff, with a set-up for purchase-hire for people to buy their own Leyland lorry (through a related company called "Ready Mixed Finance Ltd"). Latimer took this opportunity. He went to buy-buy to buy his own truck, and was under contract to transport concrete to the company. The Latimer contract describes it as an "independent contractor" and he pays all truck operational costs. But he had to put the color of the company in his truck. She also had to wear company uniform when she was working. He can only use the lorries for Ready Mixed purposes. Remuneration is calculated based on mileage and load. The question of whether he is an "employee" or an independent contractor arises because the company does not pay the national insurance contributions on his behalf under the National Insurance Act of 1965. If he is self-employed they are unnecessary, but if he is an employee they do.
Ministers have found that Latimer is employed under a service contract. The case was brought to the Court of Appeal and MacKenna J disagreed, saying that Latimer is a 'small businessman' who works under contract for services.
Maps Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance
Judgment
MacKenna J argues that in fact, Latimer is not an employee, but 'a small businessman'. He considered case law from around the world on this issue, including Queensland Stations Pty v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation 70 C.L.R. 539, Montreal Locomotive Works Ltd v. Montreal and the Attorney General of Canada [1947] 1 D.L.R. 161 and the United States v. Silk 331 AS 704 US Ct. The most important part of the assessment is as follows.
See also
- British labor law
- Nethermere (St. Neots) Ltd. v. Gardiner And More [1984] ICR 612
Note
External links
- Verdict in Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pension and National Insurance
- The decision of the next leading case O'Kelly v. Trust House Forte Plc [1984] QB 90
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments