Buildersrus Case
Introduction and Case Issues
Within this report I have been asked to analyse whether John has a case to claim against BuildersRus, a company who has hired and dismissed him on several occasions in the last 4 years. The key issue that I will examine is why the company have not offered the position to John on a permanent basis. This case will be examined through a series of questions that I feel are relevant to finding the outcome. The questions that I will analyse are as follows:
1) Is John an employee of BuildersRus or a contractor?
2) Why would BuildersRus regard John as self-employed?
3) Why was John given two weeks redundancy?
4) Why does John work for other companies?
5) Why is Pat paid more than John, even though they do a similar job …show more content…
So the fact that BuildersRus state that John is self-employed means that they do not have to pay his tax and PRSI and he must pay this himself. They are doing this because it saves them both time and money. If the case was to go to court and the court were to find that the John was an employee all along, then BuildersRus would face a fine because of the tax that they should have …show more content…
The question that was asked was whether the injured party was an employee of the farm. The court held that it is the right of the master to show the workers as to what is to be done and how it is to be done. The right to interfere with how the worker carried out their labour and the fact that the farmer did not exercise control over the individual were important findings. This then became known as the control test.
Section 3 – Rate of Redundancy
BuildersRus gave John a redundancy package of 2 weeks’ pay when they dismissed him for the last time. I will examine whether the amount that the company gave John was correct or if they should have given him more.
The act that is in place here is the Redundancy Payments Act 1967-2003. The act says that the person who is made redundant must be chosen in fairness with the onus being on the employer to justify the redundancy. Some reasons for redundancy include:
1) If the employer has ended or intends to end the running of the business
2) If the work offered to employees has diminished or is likely to diminish
3) If the work that the employee was originally hired for has changed
4) If the employee has decided to continue with fewer staff
5) If the employee decides that the work to be carried out would be better done by another
Within this report I have been asked to analyse whether John has a case to claim against BuildersRus, a company who has hired and dismissed him on several occasions in the last 4 years. The key issue that I will examine is why the company have not offered the position to John on a permanent basis. This case will be examined through a series of questions that I feel are relevant to finding the outcome. The questions that I will analyse are as follows:
1) Is John an employee of BuildersRus or a contractor?
2) Why would BuildersRus regard John as self-employed?
3) Why was John given two weeks redundancy?
4) Why does John work for other companies?
5) Why is Pat paid more than John, even though they do a similar job …show more content…
So the fact that BuildersRus state that John is self-employed means that they do not have to pay his tax and PRSI and he must pay this himself. They are doing this because it saves them both time and money. If the case was to go to court and the court were to find that the John was an employee all along, then BuildersRus would face a fine because of the tax that they should have …show more content…
The question that was asked was whether the injured party was an employee of the farm. The court held that it is the right of the master to show the workers as to what is to be done and how it is to be done. The right to interfere with how the worker carried out their labour and the fact that the farmer did not exercise control over the individual were important findings. This then became known as the control test.
Section 3 – Rate of Redundancy
BuildersRus gave John a redundancy package of 2 weeks’ pay when they dismissed him for the last time. I will examine whether the amount that the company gave John was correct or if they should have given him more.
The act that is in place here is the Redundancy Payments Act 1967-2003. The act says that the person who is made redundant must be chosen in fairness with the onus being on the employer to justify the redundancy. Some reasons for redundancy include:
1) If the employer has ended or intends to end the running of the business
2) If the work offered to employees has diminished or is likely to diminish
3) If the work that the employee was originally hired for has changed
4) If the employee has decided to continue with fewer staff
5) If the employee decides that the work to be carried out would be better done by another