“Homeworkers can be employees despite irregular hours and flexible arrangements”
Three women worked from home as machinists for Nethermere Ltd, collecting and returning garments at irregular intervals with no fixed hours or guaranteed work. When made redundant, they claimed employment status to access statutory redundancy payments, which the company disputed on grounds they were independent contractors.
Whether homeworkers with irregular work patterns and no mutual obligations during periods of non-work could be classified as employees rather than independent contractors for the purposes of employment protection legislation.
The Court of Appeal held that the homeworkers were employees. The absence of mutual obligations during periods when no work was being done did not preclude a finding of employment status where there was an ongoing relationship and regularity of work over time.
This case was pivotal in extending employment protection to atypical workers and established important precedent for determining employment status in flexible working arrangements. It influenced the development of the 'mutuality of obligation' test in employment law.
You're reading the free summary of Nethermere v Gardiner. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.
No card required. Free forever.
OSCOLA Citation
Nethermere (St Neots) Ltd v Gardiner [1984] ICR 612 (CA)
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Falls back to Google for old citations BAILII catalogues separately
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.