Gorman v Terence Paul (Manchester) Ltd Posted In: Case Law
Legal BodyEmployment Tribunal (ET)
Type of Claim / JurisdictionContracts of Employment, A-Typical Working, Pay, Tribunal Practice, Procedures and Jurisdictional Issues
The claimant, a hairdresser, commenced work for the respondent as an apprentice hair stylist in 2013. She fully qualified in October 2014 and the respondent gave her a document to sign headed ‘Independent Contract for Services’. This stated that the claimant was to be a ‘self-employed hair stylist’. The reasoning for this in the contract was that the respondent believed that it would not be able to retain high quality hair stylists as employees and that the stylists would want to take the financial risk and have flexibility.
The provisions of the contract included a substitution clause, it allowed the claimant to choose when to be in the salon subject the
Already a subscriber?
Click here to login and access the full article.Log in now to read the full article
Don't miss out, register today!
Are you fully aware of the benefits of Legal-Island's Employment Law Update Service? We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact on your business.
Help understand the ramifications of each important case from NI, GB and Europe
24/7 access to all the content in the Legal Island Vault for research case law and HR issues
Ensure your organisation’s policies and procedures are fully compliant with NI law
Receive free preliminary advice on workplace issues from the employment team at Worthingtons Solicitors
The information in this article is provided as part of Legal-Island's Employment Law Hub. We regret we are not able to respond to requests for specific legal or HR queries and recommend that professional advice is obtained before relying on information supplied anywhere within this article.