Case note on the decision of the Supreme Court in Autoclenz v Belcher Essay

Case note on the decision of the Supreme Court in Autoclenz v Belcher [2011] - Essay Example It sought to establish the actual employment context between the concerned parties as well as the legitimacy of the written term. In this case, the main question to attend to was as to whether the claimants were actually workers, by taking into consideration the already existing regulations such as the 1998 working time regulation (WTR) and the 1999 national minimum wage regulation (NMWR). The decision offered by this court confirms that a lot of consideration should be given to what exactly was the agreement between the concerned parties alongside a written contract terms2. This does not only imply that an employment tribunal (ET) should only consider the terms written at the commencement of the contract, but also at any subsequent phase which might have altered the terms of the contract. Moreover, ET does not need to be confronted by an evidence or intention of third party deceit for it to search beyond an agreement’s written terms. According to the court, the decision does not change in any way employment laws in any way since rationality is allowed in cases that call for it. Background to the case Autoclenz (appellant) is an organization that participates in the provision of car-cleaning services to both auctioneers and motor retailers. On the other hand, the claimants (respondents) consist of 20 valeter individuals who offered their services to Autoclenz as car valeters. All these valeters signed a contract at the begging with Autoclenz which stated that they were self-employed hence their taxation will be based on that3. However, later in 2007, the claimants were subjected to new contracts by Autoclenz which they were required to sign. The new contract had two main clauses: The first clause allowed the valeters to engage another individual to perform services on their behalf as long as that individual met Autoclenz employment standards. Secondly, by handing over responsibilities to another person, that particular individual’s services will n o longer be needed by Autoclenz. There was also a clause that accorded the veleters a right to work refusal. Moreover, the veleters were to give their absence notification in advance4. The claimants later placed a case at the employment tribunal seeking to be recognized as workers considering the definition of a worker by the WTR and MNWR. Basing on these two employment regulations, they also claimed that their remuneration should be in harmony with the NMWR. On the contrary, these claims seemed to be inconsistent with what the written terms of the contract depicted5. Autoclenz considered the valeters to be self-employed individuals who were not in a position to claim the statutory benefits of an actual employee. The two mentioned regulations look at worker from an identical ground as a person who works under: An employment contract. Or other contracts (implied or express). At first the ET held a stand that the veleters can be taken to be workers as well as employees, since Autoclen z exercised much control over them and they were completely in the business6. Furthermore, all the veleters seemed to have no idea of the substitution clause and for the fact that no one of them had participated in it. However, later the EAT giving the saga a different approach argued that since no clauses whether those of substitution or obligation can be inconsistent with employment contracts or personal performance contracts according to the law, then using the written agreement, the valeters were workers but not employees7. Finally, the Court of Appeal settled on the ET’s decision that considered the valeters as being both workers and employees. Main issue and judgment The main issue in this case was for the Supreme Court to establish whether there is a dispute over what is