Taxi Driver Online

The post I made was about contract law and not whether a person given a job by a radio dispatcher was deemed a worker? I advised Geoff that he is under no obligation to take a radio job but the operator is also under no obligation to have him on the radio system?

I haven't read any of the decisions you mention Terry or what court they eminate from. I can only go on what I believe has already been established in law. If a new precedent has been set then I think we would all like to read it. I have posted a previous post of mine outlining past case law on the definition of employment in the Taxi trade in relation to a contract to supply work by an operator.

It is my understanding that anyone directly employed by an operator, in respect that the operator pays a wage to the employee, is a different proposition to someone who is self-employed and who enters into a contract for the supply of a service.

Regards

JD

......................................................

Martin Edwards of Mace & Jones solicitors offered this legal update in respect of Employment law through the Law Society Gazzette in June 2004. Events since 2004 may of course disable some of the findings presented here but as yet I have seen nothing significant which has not already been said to depart from these comments.
................................................................................

LAW SOCIETY GAZETTE

10 June 2004

LSG 101.23(31)

TOPIC:

TITLE: Legal Update: Employment Law

AUTHOR: Martin Edwards; Mace & Jones, Liverpool

CASES REFERRED TO:
Dacas v Brook Street Bureau (UK) Ltd; (2004) IRLR 358; Mingeley v Pennock & Ivory t/a Amber Cars; (2004) IRLR 373; South East Sheffield Citizens Advice Bureau v Grayson; (2004) IRLR 353; Crossley v Faithful & Gould Holdings Ltd; (2004) IRLR 377; Scally v Southern Health & Social Services Board; (1991) IRLR 522; Lennon v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis; (2004) IRLR 385; Susie Radin Ltd v GMB & others; (2004) IRLR 400

LEGISLATION REFERRED TO:
Race Relations Act 1976

TEXT:
Who is an employee?

Dacas v Brook Street Bureau (UK) Ltd (2004) IRLR 358

The Court of Appeal ruled that a cleaner at a council hostel was not an 'employee' of the employment agency that had assigned her to that work.

Accordingly, she did not have the right to claim unfair dismissal when, at the instigation of the council, the agency terminated her contract.

The basis for the decision was that, on the facts, the contract between the cleaner and the agency was not a contract of service. It lacked the 'irreducible minimum of mutual obligation' that was necessary. The agency was under no duty to provide her with work and she was under no duty to accept any work it offered to her.

The fact that the agency agreed to do some things that an employer would normally do, including paying her, did not make it the employer. However, the tribunal was wrong to hold that the cleaner was not employed by the council. It had failed to address the possibility that there was an implied contract of service between the cleaner and the council. Such a contract may be deduced as a necessary inference from the conduct of the parties and the work done. Lord Justice Mummery said that in cases involving 'triangular arrangements' of this kind, the outcome which would accord with practical reality and common sense is that the individual has a contract (not a contract of service) with the agency and works under an implied contract of service with the end-user. The objective facts and degree of control over the work done for the end-user is crucial.

Lord Justice Sedley said the tribunal's conclusion that the cleaner 'was employed by nobody is simply not credible.' But Mr Justice Munby gave a cogently reasoned dissenting judgment. The majority decision has rung alarm bells with many employers who use agency workers on a long-term basis and, since the Court of Appeal was not unanimous, definitive guidance from the House of Lords on this important issue would be welcome.

Mingeley v Pennock & Ivory t/a Amber Cars (2004) IRLR 373

A differently constituted Court of Appeal upheld a decision that a taxi driver was not employed under 'a contract personally to execute any work or labour' within the meaning of the definition of 'employee' in section 78 of the Race Relations Act 1976 because under his contractual arrangements, there was no mutual obligation to offer or accept work. While it was questionable whether Parliament intended to exclude such arrangements from the scope of the Act, their inclusion could only be achieved by fresh legislation.

South East Sheffield Citizens Advice Bureau v Grayson (2004) IRLR 353

The question for the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in this case was whether volunteer advisers working for a Citizens Advice Bureaux (CAB) were 'employees'. The EAT said they were not. For a volunteer to be an 'employee', there must be an arrangement under which, in exchange for valuable consideration, the volunteer is contractually obliged to render services to or work personally for the employer. Whether any benefit flowed from the CAB to the volunteer in consideration of any work actually done by the volunteer was not the key issue.

Like similar charities, the CAB provides training for its volunteers and expects of them a commitment to work for it, but the work expected is expressed to be voluntary and is unpaid. Volunteers may at any point, with or without notice, withdraw their services.
...............................................................

In order to be classed as employed "there must be a wage or other remuneration. Otherwise there will be no consideration, and without consideration, no contract of any kind.

See these three cases for assistance on employed status. Carmichael v National Power is the precedent in most employment status cases. Third one down.

http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/vie ... php?t=2357

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cg ... _1612.html

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cg ... 99/47.html
................................................................

take it that you LA has nothing better to do with its time than chase Taxi/PH drivers about for not doing jobs.

IMO you can refuse any job you want but in saying that sometimes its better to keep moving that sitting about.
how the hell does your LA find this information out as iam sure under the data protection act the cant give out any of your details (could be wrong mind you )
sounds like someone is trying to justify there wage to me

JD ive posted this before, but just for you,we win these worker under the direction of the company issues,whereby the company takes it all the way to an IT and settles on the door with a confidentiality agreement, so you wont find case law on it but the custom and practice is now well established. THE KEY term is [worker under the direction of the company] most victories against CHAUEFFEUR Companies.
ORGANISE EDUCATE AGITATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

_________________
The views expressed by this contributor do not neccesarily reflect the policys of The GMB Nationally or of the GMB London Region.

I don't know how Chauffeur companies operate Terry but I would assume they don't rent Radio sets out to drivers, or operate the same system as a private hire or cab driver? However I'm glad you're getting the results for these guys.

Regards

JD

JD renting radios copletely irrevelant, shift requirments,uniforms,working for only one agency,account work,are the relevant issues!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ORGANISE AGITATE EDUCATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

_________________
The views expressed by this contributor do not neccesarily reflect the policys of The GMB Nationally or of the GMB London Region.

Would it not be the case that Geoff was working under the operators licence of the company therefore liable to fulfil the contract with the punter?

_________________
It's so nice to be insane, no one asks me to explain.

I think the punter sues the firm and the firm then sues the driver.

_________________
IDFIMH

The question posed was......this.....

What's the legal position on refusing work from an operator?

The only position is one of contract because as an owner or driver you are not legally obliged to undertake anywork from an operator. However, if a driver "knowingly" refuses a job because it means carrying a working dog for the blind etc, then the person doing the refusing could be liable to prosecution?

The circumstance of the relationship between operator and owner is one of contract. The owner pays the operator for the service of supplying jobs and if the owner accepts a job, then he has a responsibilty under contract law to carry out the contract.

Each job contract requires an initial offer, and the final acceptance of that offer.

So in other words "to constitute a contract, there must be an offer by one person to another and an acceptance of that offer by the person to whom it is made."

Under contract law this is known as, "Offer and Acceptence".

I might add, that if a person offers to undertake a contract on behalf of the person making the offer, a chain reaction of the duty of care materialises. So if I phoned a taxi operator and asked them to transport my goods from A to B and the Taxi firm accepted then they would owe me a duty of care to see that those goods arrived safely. A driver accepting the contract from the operator would owe a duty of care to make sure the goods arrived undamaged. However if my goods did arrive damaged then I would sue the person with whom I made the contract. The person accepting my offer would in turn be obliged to sue the person who accepted the subcontract, if they wanted to recover their loss?

Regards

JD

Thanks for the explanation JD.

So really it's down to the relationship between the company and the Drivers, to get work covered. I wonder what our LO would make of this......

_________________
It's so nice to be insane, no one asks me to explain.

Its a matter of being sensible over it, but not all drivers are sensible are they?
I understand the operators side of it to, he pays for the phones to be answered then passes the work on to the driver, but this is where it starts getting silly.
Some drivers accept the job but simply dont do it, instead of sending it back to the computer. So no-one knows the job hasnt been done until the irate customer gets on the blower.
Others refuse the job because it's not on their doorstep, personally i'll do it rather than sit there not earning any cash (within reason of course).

All those points are very valid Smiffyz, but it's down to the operator.

He gives out the radios and the work, he is where the buck stops.

_________________
IDFIMH