Macfarlane v Glasgow CC [2001] IRLR 7

Plaintiffs were gym instructors who were obliged to work, but were allowed to provide a substitute from a register when they were ‘unable’ (not merely unwilling) to work.

CA held that the matter had to be redetermined (it wasn’t ruling on whether Plaintiff was an employee-probably not due to casual nature of work - but rather whether the claim had to fail on the basis of the substitution clause).

Following Tanton, a limited power of delegation was not inconsistent with a contract of service. The substitution clause in Tanton was extreme, since it could be exercised whenever Plaintiff wanted, whereas here it was only when the worker was unable to work.

• Also in Tanton anyone could be a substitute and was paid by Plaintiff, whereas here the substitute was arranged by Glasgow CC and was paid directly by them. – Lindsay J