Author: Kiril Moskovchuk
Published: May 31, 2019
Reading time: 2 minutes
This article is 2 years old.
Read our disclaimer keyboard_arrow_down
This website content is intended as a general guide to law as it applies to the motor trade. Lawgistics has taken every effort to ensure that the contents are as accurate and up to date as at the date of first publication.
The laws and opinions expressed within this website may be varied as the law develops. As such we cannot accept liability for or the consequence of, any change of law, or official guidelines since publication or any misuse of the information provided.
The opinions in this website are based upon the experience of the authors and it must be recognised that only the courts and recognised tribunals can interpret the law with authority.
Examples given within the website are based on the experience of the authors and centre upon issues that commonly give rise to disputes. Each situation in practice will be different and may comprise several points commented upon.
If you have any doubt about the correct legal position you should seek further legal advice from Lawgistics or a suitably qualified solicitor. We cannot accept liability for your failure to take professional advice where it should reasonably be sought by a prudent person.
All characters are fictitious and should not be taken as referring to any person living or dead.
Use of this website shall be considered acceptance of the terms of the disclaimer presented above.
Many of our members support the young generation to get into employment and start on a career path. This often includes offering opportunities of work experience. It may not be immediately obvious that taking a youngster on work experience may become a contentious issuer.
Such was a recent Employment Tribunal case where one of our members successfully defended against a claim in the Employment Tribunal.
A young lad, with some involvement and help of his mother, was asking for work experience to see if a job in a garage would be the right choice for him. Willing to help the youth, our member agreed to take him on a trial period and as an extra incentive to pay him a token sum for one day a week.
The youngster argues that this arrangement, not least because of the monetary payment, was in fact an employment relationship.
The Tribunal preferred our explanation. The trial period and the work experience were for the sole benefit of the claimant, and at the cost and inconvenience of our member. He was not required or expected to complete the trial period or turn up on every or any of the agreed days. He was simply shadowing our staff and learning the about the work in the garage.
The Tribunal accepted that this arrangement lacked the characteristics of employment and dismissed the claim.