Sentences with phrase «substitution clause»

Place more emphasis on control than personal service in determining worker status to ensure substitution clauses are used less frequently.

Employers often include substitution clauses in contracts with their service providers.

Tempting as it may be for other businesses to introduce substitution clauses to their contracts in order to avoid worker status (as City Sprint are also reported to have done), it is not something that should be done without proper thought.

Redrow Homes (Yorkshire) v Buckborough [2009] IRLR 34 An early case on substitution clauses which distinguish a contract of employment from a contract for services establishing the principle of a sham not only where there is an attempt to deceive a third party but also where neither party intended to create the legal rights and obligations set out in the employment contract.

«Armies of lawyers will simply put substitution clauses, or clauses denying any obligation to accept or provide work, into employment contracts, as a matter of form, even where such terms do not begin to reflect the real relationship.»

This would make it harder for employers, such as Deliveroo, to use «substitution clauses» to deny worker status and would lead to more people being protected by employment law.

In its view, if greater emphasis was placed on «control» and less on personal service, this would lead to more people being protected by employment law and make it harder for employers to «hide behind» substitution clauses: clauses which can undermine employee status by allowing the individual to substitute personal service for the service of others.

The 2007 contract also contained a substitution clause and a clause stating that Autoclenz was not obliged to provide work and the person was not obliged to provide services.

Here, the court unanimously held that neither the «right to refuse» clause nor the substitution clause expressed that true intent and so did not prevent employment status.

The judgment is also of interest for its treatment of the substitution clause.

The leading Court of Appeal authority (Express & Echo v Tanton [1999] IRLR 367, [1999] All ER (D) 256) envisages a tribunal disapplying a substitution clause if it is a «sham», but this is in itself a difficult test for a claimant because a strict view of it requires proof of a deliberate attempt to evade legal responsibilities, almost an element of mens rea (see Real Time Engineering Ltd v Callaghan [2006] UKEAT / 516/05).

It denied any obligation to provide a set amount of work, denied any terms relating to sickness, holidays and pensions, contained a substitution clause (requiring provision of a competent substitute if he can not perform the work personally) and allowed the agency to prevent the individual working for someone else if there was a conflict with working for the agency.