The EAT has held that - when constructing the statutory definition of 'worker' for the purposes of the whistleblowing legislation - it is appropriate to adopt a purposive approach.
Therefore an individual who supplied his services through a limited company, which in turn was engaged by an employment agency to provide services for the end-user (i.e. Claimant --> Claimant's service company --> employment agency --> end user), fell within the extended definition of 'worker' in s43(K) ERA 1996 and was entitled to rely on the whistleblowing legislation.
Croke v Hydro Aluminium Worcester Ltd
Thanks to John Bowers QC of Littleton Chambers and Rebecca Ireland of ClarksLegal, who represented the end-user, for telling me about this case
Thursday, 5 April 2007
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Post a Comment