Employment News — 27 January 2014: bare necessities: implied contract between agency worker and client was not necessary
The claimant in Smith v Carillion (JM) Ltd worked in the construction industry through an employment agency. He brought claims, against two end-user companies, of detrimental treatment on grounds of his trade union and safety representative activities. He did not have an express contract and the tribunal ruled that no contract could be implied, so his claims could not be heard.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) dismissed the appeal. The claimant had raised five factors as indicative of a contract…
If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the Hogan Lovells briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.
News from Hogan Lovells
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Hogan Lovells
The decision of the US Court of Appeals has raised questions about how issuers should present their disclosures on conflict minerals under Exchange Act Rule 13p-1 and Form SD.
An interesting judgment was delivered by the Honourable J Majiki on 19 November 2013 in the Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth.
Analysis from The Lawyer
As international firms question their future in these small, closely linked markets, local lawyers too are eyeing the business environment with caution
Beyond the headline infrastructure projects, UK construction work is still recovering from the clobbering it took during the slump