1 / 10

Franchisee or Employee – the UK perspective

This article discusses the concept of vicarious liability and assesses the status of franchisees as employees based on factors such as remuneration, control, and other contractual provisions. It also examines the Autoclenz v. Belcher case and its implications on determining worker status.

jrash
Télécharger la présentation

Franchisee or Employee – the UK perspective

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Franchisee or Employee – the UK perspective Natalia Lewis Hamilton Pratt Franchise House 3A Tournament Court Tournament Fields Warwick, CV34 6LG United Kingdom

  2. What is vicarious liability? Vicarious Liability = strict no fault liability arising, historically, only in the context of an employment relationship. Other relationships? Only when the relationship is so close in character to employer/employee relationship that it is just and fair to impose liability. Are franchisees employees?

  3. Assessing Status of an Individual Ready Mixed Concrete v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance: • Remuneration in return for personal service • Mutuality of obligations • Personal service – right to provide a substitute • Control: What? How? When? Where? • Other factors: • Ownership of tools • Financial risk • Benefit of profit • Other contractual provisions

  4. Autoclenz v Belcher and Others • Quick Facts: • Contracts? Independent sub-contractors • Provided with equipment • Paid weekly but paid own national insurance & tax • Inland Revenue’s assessment: self-employed … valeters claimed they were workers.

  5. Autoclenz v Belcher and Others cont. Who is a worker? “Worker” means: • (a) employee or • (b) an individual who has entered into or works under any other contract… whereby the individual undertakes to do or perform personally any work or services for another party to the contract whose status is not by virtue of the contract that of a client or customer of any profession or business undertaking carried on by the individual

  6. Autoclenz v Belcher and Others cont. A person is an employee when: • Employer has undertaken to provide work for pay • Employee has undertaken to perform work for pay • Personal performance • Subject to control of the employer A person is a worker when: • There is a contract • Personal performance • Status of the other party – not a client or customer

  7. Autoclenz v Belcher and Others cont. • Employment Tribunal employees but in any event workers • Employment Appeal Tribunal workers but not employees • Court of Appeal workers and employees • Supreme Court workers and employees

  8. Autoclenz v Belcher and Others cont. • Analysis – starting point  is the contract clear? Yes No Q 1: personal service? Step 1: what are the contractual terms? No personal service = Contractual terms v reality Not worker, not employee Once the terms are identified Q2: client or customer? If yes, then not worker, not employee

  9. Autoclenz v Belcher and Others cont. Court of Appeal’s conclusion: • Valeters agreed to perform the services in return for pay • Mutuality of Obligations • Personal performance Therefore next question…. Status of Autoclenz? Autoclenz was not a client or customer …therefore… Valeters = Workers Next  element of control  Valeters = Employees

  10. Are Franchisees Employees? Autoclenz case is a “one off”

More Related