Modern apprenticeships

Case 3: The facts

Kazimierz Dul worked under the modern apprenticeship scheme. Dul was dismissed and claimed that his compensation should reflect the fact that he had lost the benefit of completing his apprenticeship. His employer argued that he was not an apprentice.

The ruling

The EAT heard evidence from the Learning and Skills Council. It said that modern apprenticeship (MA) was just a "marketing term" and that what was on offer was a training scheme, not an apprenticeship. The EAT agreed that it was a "combination of training and job experience" and nothing else. In coming to its decision the EAT made no reference to an earlier ruling in the case of Whitely v Marton Electrical [2003] IRLR 197 which had held that a MA could amount to an apprenticeship.

* Thorpe v Dull EAT/0630/02