Casual contracts

Case 3: The facts

Home tutor Mrs Prater worked on short-term teaching assignments for an education authority over a number of years; sometimes there were gaps between the end of one assignment and the start of the next. In theory she could refuse assignments, but in practice she never did. The authority had no legal obligation to provide her with work.

The question was whether she was an employee and had continuity of employment.

The ruling

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) noted that there was no close control over Prater's work, as would be the case with any experienced teacher. She expected to teach and the authority expected that she would teach. She had no right to substitute another teacher for herself. There was no mutual obligation to provide and accept work, but there were mutual obligations during periods of work; this created an employment relationship.

Each assignment amounted to a separate contract of employment, the EAT said. These could be "joined up" as the breaks between them were absences due to "temporary cessations of work" - which, under section 212 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, do not break continuity.

Cornwall CC v Prater UKEAT/0055/05