It is submitted at the outset that the issue remains contentious particularly in light of the continuous changes in working practices.
From a statutory perspective, the legal definition of employee is described under Section 230(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA) as “an individual who has entered into or works under……..a contract of employment”. The section 230 definition has been criticised for being ambiguous (Honeyball & Bowers. 2006) and it is necessary to refer to the common law test for defining the status of employee. The statutory provision is bolstered by the Ready Mixed Concrete test (Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions & National Insurance  2 QB 497), which requires an examination of the “overall picture” (Jupp, 2005)
The starting point for determining whether an individual is an employee is the “control” test (Honeyball & Bowers. 2006). This was established in Yewens v Noakes (1880 6 Q.B.D. 530), where Bramwell LJ asserted that:“a servant is a person subject to the command of his master as to the manner in which he shall do his work” (at pp.532-533). However, socio-economic developments in the labour market have changed the shape of employment status, thereby undermining the suitability of the control test as a sole determinant of employment status (Pitt, G. 2007).
This was further acknowledged by the Court of Appeal in Walker v Crystal Palace FC ( 1 KB 87), where the control test was given a different slant by focusing on whether the employer had the right to control the background arrangements for the work such as when and where the work was done, payments and holiday entitlements.
However, the Walker extension of the control test was further developed into the “integration” test as propounded by Lord Denning in the case of Stevenson Jordan and Harrison v MacDonald & Evans ( 1 TLR 101) “…under a contract of service, a man is employed as part of the