- End users have no reason to panic
- Court of Appealís decision in Muscat vs. Cable & Wireless
It would be wrong to assume that all contractors now have employment rights because the Court of Appeal ruled (March 9 2006) that a limited company contractor was an employee of the end user of his services, warns giant group plc, the contractor services provider.
The judgement in Muscat vs. Cable & Wireless found that Mr Muscat was an employee of Cable & Wireless, even though he supplied his services through his own limited company and a staffing company.
Matthew Brown, Managing Director, giant group plc, comments: This case is highly unusual because Mr Muscat was an employee of Cable & Wireless, but left work on a Friday as an employee to return on Monday as a limited company contractor. As a contractor he was still treated like an employee, hence he was still effectively an employee under the ëguiseí of a contractor.
According to giant, the problem arose because the company Mr Muscat worked for originally, called Exodus Internet, wanted to cut staff to make itself more attractive to its potential acquirer, Cable & Wireless. It was Exodus Internet who shoehorned Mr Muscat into being a contractor and then continued to treat him as an employee. For example, as a contractor Mr Muscat still had an employee number and was still included in the Cable & Wireless departmental structure and headcount.
Matthew Brown says: End users have no reason to panic. The Muscat vs. Cable & Wireless type of scenario is highly unusual, so the outcome of this case gives no indication of how tribunals will rule on future ënormalí claims.
End users and contractors who continue to operate in a professional manner have nothing to fear from this ruling.
Contractor ruling does not set employment precedent
.
