St Ives Plymouth Limited v Haggerty - EAT

It was firmly established in Carmichael & Anor v National Power 1999 (House of Lords) that where there is no obligation to offer work to casual workers and no obligation to accept that work then there is no mutuality of obligation between the worker and the employer.  This means that while the worker may be employed under a contract of service during the period of work, no over-arching contract exists during periods when no work is undertaken.  This in turn means that continuity of employment is not maintained and periods of employment cannot be linked together.

In the above case the EAT have held that where a worker is offered work on a regular basis, and there is an expectation that work will be offered and accepted, an over-arching contract may exist linking the periods of work, even where there is an express clause that there is no obligation to offer or accept work.  In this case the tribunal found that had H not been offered a reasonable amount of work she would have sought work elsewhere and had she consistently refused the work the Company would have removed her name from the list of casual workers. 

click here to read the full case report.