Analysis Of The Autoclenz Vs. Belcher Case

In the Autoclenz vs. Belcher case, a different aspect was revealed regarding the employment contract. Autoclenz had a team of 20 car valeters who were self-employed contractors and responsible for buying own uniforms and materials from the company, along with paying insurance. After a period of time Autoclenz revised the employment contract adding a substitution clause centred towards the right to recruit others and right to even refuse work. The contract outlined that the relationship among parties to be of an independent contractor and a client. Arguably, Autoclenz even expected that workers need to submit a prior notice in case of absence. The valeters claimed that the terms included within the employment contract were inappropriate and …show more content…
When evaluating the employment status, it becomes important to reflect upon the reality of a particular contract, rather than just considering certain sham terms. For instance, the main issue taken into account by the Supreme Court while handling dispute, the written contract should outline the actual relationship nature between parties. However in certain scenarios, the written terms can even be disregarded by taking into account what the parties have initially agreed upon if the written term of the contract is not a genuine reflection of the true relationship. The decision was aligned with the judgement made during Consistent Group Ltd vs. Kalwak case. In the stated case, the reality of a situation was taken into account, instead of any contractual provision. The court’s decision indicated that unrealistic demands would not be considered if they fail to be aligned with the real nature of employment relationship.Any employment dispute should be investigated through considering evidence on how parties conducted their practice, any written terms, expectations of the parties and any other relevant evidence. The judgement in Protectacoat Firthglow Ltd V Szilagyi case can also be taken into account to identify the basis of Autoclenz’s case. In the aforementioned case, it was clearly communicated that the court needs to understand whether the …show more content…
In Bankway Properties Ltd vs. Pensfold-Dunsford, similar question was answered regarding the areas where contractual provisions shall not stand effective where a pretence ‘sham’ has occurred. The court’s decision in Autoclenz’s case stated that the Court of Appeal needs to identify if the parties were bound by any legal obligations, rather than emphasising upon the way a contract was carried out. In overall context, the sham provisions can be treated well through analysing reality of a specific scenario and the underlying legal obligations. Originality of the contractual agreement needs to be proved in such legal cases. It is evident that if the actual version of the employer-employee relationship is different from what is mentioned in the contractual agreement, than employer shall be subjected to legal implications. In Autoclenz’s case, such legal implications were closely related with financial impact on the company. For instance, if it is proved that Autoclenz treated their self-employed contractors as full-time employees in terms of allocating job duties, than the employer is bound to bear financial costs related to minimum wage structure, list of holidays, additional employee benefits, etc. On the contrary, costs associated with unfair dismissal also become prominent while treating sham provisions, with reference to