GFTU Emplaw Emplaw Emplaw

A D Bly Construction Ltd v Cochrane - Definition of "worker" under the Working Time Regulations [2005] EAT

The EAT ruled that Mr Cochrane was not a "worker" for the purpose of the Working Time Regulations. The reason was that there was no mutuality of "obligation"- in other words there was absolutely no obligation on the company to provide any work and absolutely no obligation on Mr Cochrane to do work if and when offered.

The full content of this page is available to subscribers only. Please purchase a subscription if you feel this content will be of use to you.

Login or subscribe (includes subscription information) to access the full content of this page.