問題：In the context of employment law, state how the courts decide whether someone is self-employed or is an employee.
　　答案：Employees are people working under a contract of service.Those who work under a contract for services are independent contractors.
　　They are not employees, but are self-employed. It is essential to distinguish the two categories clearly, because important legal consequences follow from the placing of a person in one or other of the categories. For example, although employees are protected by various common law and statutory rights in relation to their employment, no such wide-scale protection is offered to the self-employed.
　　Given the importance of the distinction the courts have developed a variety of test for distinguishing the employee from the self-employed.
　　(i) The control test
　　The fi rst test to be applied by the courts was known as the control test and depended upon the degree to which the person who is using the other’s services actually controls; not only what they do, but how they do it (in Walker v Crystal Palace Football Club (1910) a professional football player was held to be an employee of his club). The main shortcoming in the control test was its lack of subtlety. Highly skilled professionals, such as surgeons, by necessity have a high level of control over how they perform their day-to-day work, which meant that, under the control test, they were deemed to be self-employed rather than employees. Consequently, they were personally liable for any negligence in their performance, rather than the Health Authority, which used their services.
　　(ii) The integration test
　　The integration test shifted the emphasis from the degree of control exercised of an individual to the extent to which the individual was integrated into the business of their employer (in Whittaker v Minister of Pensions & National Insurance (1967) a circus trapeze artist who was required to do other general tasks in relation to the operation of the circus was held to be an employee). However, even the integration test was not without problems, with some employers attempting to give the impression of using a self-employed work-force whilst effectively still controlling what that work-force did.
　　(iii) The multiple, or economic reality test
　　The economic reality test was fi rst established in Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (1968). In that case, rather than relying on one single factor the court held that there were three conditions supporting the existence of a contract of employment:
　　– the employee agrees to provide his own work and skill in return for a wage,
　　– the employees agrees, either expressly or impliedly, that they will be subject to a degree of control, exercisable by the employer,
　　– the other provisions of the contract are consistent with its being a contract of employment.
　　In deciding whether or not there is contract of employment the courts tend to focus on such issues as whether wages are paid regularly or by way of a single lump sum; whether the person receives holiday pay; and on who pays the due national insurance and income tax. However, there can be no defi nitive list of tests as the whole point of the multiple test is that it examines all aspects of the situation in order to reach a determination. For example in Nethermore (ST Neots) v Gardiner & Taverna (1984), a group of home workers, i.e. people who carried out paid work in their own homes, were held to be employees on the grounds that they were subject to an irreducible minimum obligation to work for their employer.