Part and Parcel of the Organisation considers whether the Contractor has now become integrated into the Client Company. Does the Contractor work infrequently and only work for the Client when work is available. If we look back at Mutuality of Obligation and the Carmichael case it was made clear that the Power Company was under no obligation to provide any work to the women. Where the Client provides regular work to the Contractor especially on a rolling contract it can give the impression that the Contractor is really a disguised employee.
Examples are known where Contractors
Have their own car park space in the Executive car park;
Have business cards in the name of the Client;
Wear the Company uniform (Tanton case);
Are provided with a company car or company van (Tanton case);
Have their own desk/workstation or even separate office at the Client;
Appear in the Client's internal telephone directory;
Appear on the Client's website and have their own e-mail address; and
Attend team-bonding sessions provided by the Client.
It is surprising that after a number of Contracts, rather than reviewing the working practices of new Contracts to see if any of the conditions have changed, it is assumed that the Contractor is still using a Contract for Services (self-employment). By using Rolling Contracts the Contractor could be giving his services exclusively to one Client which could give the impression there is a Contract of Services.
