Representation:-

the tripartite nature of a Modern Apprenticeship agreement is a major feature distinguishing it from an apprenticeship in the traditional sense. It is a tripartite agreement between an employer, a trainee and a training provider under which the status of the trainee cannot be that of "apprentice" in the traditional sense and is likely to be (and in this case was) that of employee.

The result is that breach of the agreement by the employer does not entitle the trainee to the substantial damages to which an apprentice can be entitled for breach by the Master of a normal apprenticeship agreement.

STOP PRESS
The Court of Appeal overruled the above decision on 7th February 2006. The Court of Appeal ruled that as a matter of law the status of a trainee under a Modern Apprenticeship agreement CAN be that of an apprentice in the traditional sense. The case was remitted back to the employment tribunal for reconsideration on the facts, albeit with the comment by Pill LJ that "This litigation has already become protracted and the factual uncertainties are such that attempts to resolve the dispute out of court would in my view be appropriate" (see Flett v Matheson CA 2006 EWCA Civ 53, Court of Appeal on 7th Feb 2006).

For relevant general notes and context see Apprentices and Definitions and interpretation/employee