UK Employment Law: Six Case Studies Analyzed

Victoria's Case: Employment Status and Contract of Service

Employers engage workers on either contracts of service or contracts for services. Any person engaged under a contract of service qualifies as an employee and enjoys full protection under employment legislation. A self-employed individual, by contrast, must possess a contract for services with the party for whom they provide services. It is important for people to understand their status — whether they fall under the employed or the self-employed category (Sargeant and David, 2012). In Victoria's case, it is apparent that she does not have a written contract — or any contract indicating the terms under which she works. This clearly suggests that Victoria does not fall under a recognized category of employment, as she lacks a contract.

Under employment law, if there is no contract between two parties (employer and employee), a worker does not qualify as an employee of the client. By definition, "an employee is any individual who has entered into a contract, or who offers services under a contract of employment, whether the contract is for service or an apprenticeship." However, the law further clarifies that this need not be in writing in order to qualify as a contract. Nevertheless, if the arrangement does not confer upon the "employee" any legal obligations — such as protection, social security, and taxation rights — then the individual does not qualify as an employee. In Victoria's case, she pays her own tax and national insurance from her earnings.

The HY Organization is not affected by any protection or legal obligation as explained in the employment law, which is further evidence that Victoria does not qualify as an employee. A significant factor when testing for employee status is training. From the case scenario, HY provides opportunities for its therapists to attend courses on addiction, which indicates that HY prescribes a particular manner in which it expects its workers to perform services (Honeyball, 2011). The case reveals that Victoria attends training regularly and follows an order set by HY — HY assigns clients to Victoria, and she renders her services personally. These are markers that may suggest the existence of employment; however, Victoria is not always available to offer her services, indicating that a clear employment status does not exist.

John's Case: Administrative Suspension and Breach of Contract

For many years, the courts have recognized that an employer has the power, in certain circumstances, to impose suspension on an employee. It is important to distinguish between disciplinary suspension — a punitive measure for a reproachable act committed at work — and administrative suspension, which is a preventive measure taken in the employer's interest when business circumstances require it, even in the absence of a proven act by the employee (Sargeant and David, 2012). The school was justified in suspending John because the suspension did not include the withdrawal of his salary. This is appropriate because the employer had not yet concluded its investigation into the allegations of sexual misconduct against him. The type of suspension imposed on John falls under the preventive category, and is therefore an administrative suspension, because the allegations initially lacked substantial support.

A question arises, however, as to whether placing an employee under administrative suspension constitutes a violation or breach of contract. In a number of court cases, it has been established that preventive suspension does not indicate that the employer has prejudged the employee as accountable for the charges he or she has been asked to answer. In John's case, placing him under preventive suspension was not a conclusion that he had committed sexual misconduct; rather, it was a necessary measure to protect the school, its operations, and its resources pending investigation of the alleged misconduct.

Furthermore, the preventive suspension did not last for an extended period. Had it done so, it could have qualified as a breach of contract. The labour law provides for preventive suspension, allowing an employer to place a worker allegedly involved in misconduct under such a status if the worker's continued employment poses a serious threat to the firm's operations (Honeyball, 2011). Working in a school under such allegations could have endangered John's standing and the welfare of students. Therefore, the school acted in accordance with employment law when it suspended John pending investigation.

Sue's Case: Variation of Employment Terms and Work Practices

The relationship between employer and employee is governed by the terms and conditions of the employment contract. Under employment law, these terms and conditions may be either express or implied, and are often established through negotiation between the parties before employment begins. The law incorporates both express and implied terms into an employment contract. However, any unilateral variation to the employment contract by either party is only possible through agreement — whether express, implied, tacit, or by acquiescence (Honeyball, 2011). While the law may constrain an employer's ability to adjust an employee's terms and conditions of employment, it is permissible for an employer to alter work practices, or suspend or discontinue certain practices, at their discretion.

In this case, Sue has worked for her university for thirty years. Students appreciate her teaching, though she uses traditional teaching methods. The University wishes to eliminate these traditional methods and incorporate the use of tablets; however, Sue refuses to comply with her employer's alteration of work practices (Sargeant and David, 2012). Under employment law, employers may alter or suspend work practices at their discretion, but they cannot unilaterally alter the substantive terms and conditions of employment, as the law does not provide for such unilateral changes.

Although the content of Sue's job is considerably altered, this does not constitute a breach of contract. Under employment law, an employer may abolish certain duties and replace them with others. Furthermore, the change from traditional teaching methods to the use of tablets was not made purely at the employer's discretion but in the best interest of the institution (Kidner, 2012). Importantly, the alteration in work practices does not affect Sue's principal function as a lecturer, nor does it change her rate of pay, hours of employment, holiday entitlement, sick leave, or retirement fund rights. This is in accordance with employment law, and the employer is entitled to make such changes to work practices.