This test seeks to determine whether when the person is in charge of the operation of the employment contract the employer has control over the job, the time of the job and the work place (Lockton 2006, p. 35). In James’ situation he is in charge of the classes at the hotel’s fitness club thus can take time off and independently plan his own cover from the other instructors working in the hotel club. To this extent, the hotel “employer” has limited control on his working time (Sargeant and Lewis 2004, p. 123). Based on the above conditions, there is no personal service that is embodied in the Employment Law in the contract between James and Meteor. For instance, in case of Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v Coggins and Griffiths (Liverpol) AC 1 held that the crane driver was an employee of Mercy Docks. As per the contract, the crane driver was to be the employee of Coggins. The court held that despite Coggins instructing the driver, they had no control over the crane thereby making Mercy Docks to be liable for the crane driver’s injury of person X because of negligence (Contract of Employment 2011). Integration Test The integration test is concerned with whether the workman was fully part and parcel of the business has been adopted in settling employee-employer disputes (Davies 2011, p. 178-179). In the case of James, this test should regard him as an employee if he had “administrative duties, management decisions and or when he had other tasks assigned to him” (Davies 2011, p. 93-94). The case of Stevenson, Jordan & Harrison v Macdonald & Evans (1952) 1 TLR 101 provides more insight into this test as it ruled that one was an employee only when he formed an integral part of the business otherwise he is a private contractor. For James, this test fails because he only had twelve hours of work per week and only one assignment (Employment Law 2011). Economic Reality Method Economic reality test identifies the mission of the workers in the business and whether there is a mutual obligation to perform work as directed. It answers questions on the degree of risk, opportunities for profits and investment taken by the worker, and whether he/she is paid a salary or not (Sargeant and Lewis 2004, p. 110-112). In the case of James, the fact that he brings his own stereo and CDs, delegate roles and has a high degree of investment implies that he does his own business and is therefore under contract for service. For instance, the case of Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (1968) 2 QB 478 ruled that the lorry driver was an independent contractor since he had the ability to delegate his job to another driver upon consultation with the company the same way James could arrange his own cover during time off (Davies 2011, p. 93-94). The case of O’Kelly v Trusthouse Forte (1984) illustrates mutuality of obligation where it was ruled that a wine waiter was self-employed because there was no obligation for the waiter to provide her services and the employer to provide work when she showed up. Similarly, despite James having worked at the hotel regularly for six years no mutual provision existed for an obligation for his services (Contract of Employment 2011). Multiple Factor Test Multiple factor test
LAW OF ACCOUNTING: EMPLOYMENT LAW Class Name of Institution City Date James’ Employment Status In James’ case the courts would first determine whether he is an employee of the hotel or a private contractor. It would determine whether having been taking classes in the hotel’s fitness club on a regular basis for the last six years qualifies James to be an employee of the hotel…
The thesis statement this paper would be holding is “No exhaustive list has been compiled and perhaps no exhaustive list can be compiled of the considerations which are relevant in determining the question of employment status, nor can strict rules be laid down as to the relative weight, which the various considerations should carry in particular cases.”
It is further established on the capacity of the employer to furnish work while the employee possesses the skills to perform the required task. In many instances, the relationship between the employer and employee thrives but in some, it simply does not fit.
In this regard, the legality of asking Gale about her marital and religious statuses can only be evaluated if these questions determined the outcome of the interview. In fact, since employment laws prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, nationality, sex, age and marital status, it is, therefore, not fit for employers to factor in answers based on these issues (Goldman and Corrada 184).
Furthermore, the remedies that can be awarded to Jill will be assessed from the standpoint of arbitration and later as a federal judge. DISCUSSION As the company, i.e. Momma Mia, is classified under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act under the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Jill would be eligible to obtain certain remedies for the damages she had to suffer owing to the maltreatment of the company.
In 1939 Congress codified the Federal tax laws" ("Tax Law and Accounting," 2009).
The aspect of modern income tax statutes that undeniably upset people the world over is that the tax law continually changes. Not only that, but it happens to be very complicated.
Those occasions currently being care, references to foreign system, are in many countries not frequent for purposes of day to day practice. A historical and critical study of the labour movement movement has come to be recognized as a necessary and even vital part of research of human relations.
The author states that the complexity and ambiguity surrounding the definition of atypical workers has led to confusion regarding a clear definition. Those who consider themselves employees, and therefore have access to employment rights, may turn out not to be. Individuals may have expansive employment rights by law without realising it.
sulted in less favourable treatment of one sex, or the less favourable treatment would not have occurred but for the complainant’s sex, it would constitute direct discrimination3.
With regard to indirect discrimination, this is discrimination against a particular group sexual