Law For Accounting: Employment Law - Essay Example

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