| Commentary

(c) Casual workers

| Commentary

(c)     Casual workers

Of course none of the various categories under the atypical heading are mutually exclusive. Casual workers may be homeworkers or teleworkers as well as being agency workers or part-time. A number of cases involving casual workers have focused attention on one of the criteria in determining whether they are employees or not—that of mutual obligation. In one case, it was held that a casual worker was not an employee because there was no obligation to turn up for work every day and, in another case, that temporaries were not employees where inter alia they were under no obligation to accept bookings: Mailway (Southern) Ltd v Willsher [1978] IRLR 322, [1978] ICR 511, EAT; Wickens v Champion Employment [1984] ICR 365, EAT and Ironmonger v Movefield Ltd (T/A Deering Appointments) [1988] IRLR 461, EAT. In Airfix above, the homeworker was found to be an employee despite the absence of a contractual obligation on the part of the company to provide her with work, or for that matter on her part to do any. This has led to a degree of inconsistency in tribunal and court decisions where periods of casual work have been punctuated by periods of

To continue reading
Analyse the law and clarify obscure passages all within a practical context.