Case Round Up
Agency Workers and Whistleblowing
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has confirmed, in the case of Croke -v- Hydro Aluminium Worcester Ltd, that, for the purposes of the whistleblowing legislation, the statutory definition of 'worker' should be construed in a purposive manner.
In the case, the business (Hydro Aluminium Worcester) received services from Mr Croke, who supplied these services not simply through an intervening agency, but to that agency by way of his own limited company. Even in these circumstances, Mr Croke was determined to be a 'worker' for the purposes of whistleblowing legislation, found in the 1996 Employment Rights Act.
Duty to Work Flexibly
The EAT has handed down a decision concerning the question whether there is an implied contractual term imposing a duty to work flexibly on a temporary basis. In Luke -v- Stroke on Trent City Council, the EAT held that "there is no reason in principle why a tribunal should not find an implied term in a contract of employment that an employee may be obliged to perform duties which go beyond, or are different from, those expressly required by the contract, or to perform them at a different work-place. But such a finding can only be made in accordance with the normal strict rules governing the implication of terms."
In other words, the EAT held that an implied obligation to undertake a duty which is outside the express terms of the contract is likely to be legitimately implied only in circumstances where the requirement is plainly justified, where work is suitable, where the employee suffers no detriment in terms of contractual benefits or status and where the change in duties is temporary.