Nethermere (St Neots) Ltd v Gardiner
Home workers who had regularly done work for a company over a period of years could be employees, because a course of dealing could give rise to mutual obligations.
Facts
Mrs Gardiner and Mrs Taverna worked at home, sewing pockets on trousers for a clothing company, using machines provided by the company. They worked whatever hours they chose, and could decide how much work to take on, but they had done the work regularly for a period of years, and the company regularly supplied them with work. When they were dismissed, they claimed unfair dismissal, and the question was whether they were employees.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held, by a majority, that the tribunal had been entitled to find that they were employees. Stephenson LJ said that there must be an irreducible minimum of obligation on each side to create a contract of service, but that a regular course of dealing over a long period could harden into an enforceable contract, with an obligation on the company to provide work and on the home workers to do it. The tribunal had been entitled to find that this had happened. The case is often contrasted with Carmichael v National Power.
Related cases on employment status
- Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher [2011] UKSC 41, [2011] ICR 1157
- Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13, [2020] AC 973
- Bates van Winkelhof v Clyde & Co LLP [2014] UKSC 32, [2014] 1 WLR 2047
- Carmichael v National Power plc [1999] 1 WLR 2042
- Express and Echo Publications Ltd v Tanton [1999] ICR 693
- Independent Workers' Union of Great Britain v Central Arbitration Committee [2023] UKSC 43
- James v Greenwich London Borough Council [2008] EWCA Civ 35, [2008] ICR 545
- James v Redcats (Brands) Ltd [2007] ICR 1006
Studying employment law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
