Bachelor of Business Studies [Honours]
Management
Semester 7
Module:
Employment Law
Lecturer: Joe Varley
Submission Date: 21st November 2014
Student Details:
Louise Murray X00064662
Declaration:
The above named student’s declare that the content of this Continuous Assessment project is solely the work of the individual whose name appears on this cover sheet. The work of any other authors has been cited and referenced in full.
Contents Page
Introduction 3
Section 1- Fixed Term Contract 4
Section 2 – Employee V Contractor 9
Section 3-National Minimum Wage Act 2000 11 Section 4- Health and Safety 12
Reference 16
Introduction
Employment …show more content…
In this case the claimant who was employed as a food demonstrator was considered an employee not an independent contractor by the supreme court. Sandra Mahon was paid £28 per a day plus mileage for her service. Her contract was renewed annually. The fact that she was recruited by the appellant, worked for the company for a number of years was given for hours for a week’s work a contractor would not get this. The employer provided her with all the food products, equipment and her uniform. Sandra was responsible for her own tax affairs was not insured for any damage or injury she might sustain or cause while working for Denny and Sons. The Supreme Court considered her an employee given …show more content…
The contract came to an end when she was made redundant and a statutory redundancy was paid to her by the appellant. The respondent refereed she had been less favourably treated than the comparable permanent employee she did not receive the same redundancy payment as the other employees. The labour court directed the appellant to pay the ex gratia redundancy payment calculated on their basis of 4 weeks’ pay per a year of service. Section 5 for the purpose of the employee is a comparable permanent employee in relation to fixed term employee. Legislation a fixed term employment obliges employers to treat permanent and temporary workers on an equal basis. UCC had argued that because it had not any permeant employees redundant there was no comparable permanent employee. The decision was none of the employees fell within the category. It was correct to consider the issue of objective justification under section 7. The respondent was denied an ex grata payment of the basis she was a fixed term
Management
Semester 7
Module:
Employment Law
Lecturer: Joe Varley
Submission Date: 21st November 2014
Student Details:
Louise Murray X00064662
Declaration:
The above named student’s declare that the content of this Continuous Assessment project is solely the work of the individual whose name appears on this cover sheet. The work of any other authors has been cited and referenced in full.
Contents Page
Introduction 3
Section 1- Fixed Term Contract 4
Section 2 – Employee V Contractor 9
Section 3-National Minimum Wage Act 2000 11 Section 4- Health and Safety 12
Reference 16
Introduction
Employment …show more content…
In this case the claimant who was employed as a food demonstrator was considered an employee not an independent contractor by the supreme court. Sandra Mahon was paid £28 per a day plus mileage for her service. Her contract was renewed annually. The fact that she was recruited by the appellant, worked for the company for a number of years was given for hours for a week’s work a contractor would not get this. The employer provided her with all the food products, equipment and her uniform. Sandra was responsible for her own tax affairs was not insured for any damage or injury she might sustain or cause while working for Denny and Sons. The Supreme Court considered her an employee given …show more content…
The contract came to an end when she was made redundant and a statutory redundancy was paid to her by the appellant. The respondent refereed she had been less favourably treated than the comparable permanent employee she did not receive the same redundancy payment as the other employees. The labour court directed the appellant to pay the ex gratia redundancy payment calculated on their basis of 4 weeks’ pay per a year of service. Section 5 for the purpose of the employee is a comparable permanent employee in relation to fixed term employee. Legislation a fixed term employment obliges employers to treat permanent and temporary workers on an equal basis. UCC had argued that because it had not any permeant employees redundant there was no comparable permanent employee. The decision was none of the employees fell within the category. It was correct to consider the issue of objective justification under section 7. The respondent was denied an ex grata payment of the basis she was a fixed term