Abstract

Among other matters, the Taylor Review addressed the issues of employee and worker status for statutory purposes and how the current law might be updated to reflect the realities of the modern workplace and developing models of the engagement of workers. It did not, however, propose reform in relation to the important and intimately connected question of the identity of the employer for the purposes of employment protection legislation. In particular, no consideration was given to or proposals made in its report in respect of the issue of whether a ‘functional’ employer approach to ascribing responsibility for compliance with employment law requirements—such as a ‘joint employment’ model—might be appropriate to deal with issues of perceived inadequate coverage of employment protection standards consequent upon certain employment legislation being limited in its application to the ‘contractual’ employer. While there are cogent objections to adopting a functional employer approach, the most recent domestic caselaw and the ongoing debate concerning the operation of the joint employer concept in the USA offer a valuable perspective on the scope and design of a functional employment model which can contribute to any debate which might ensue about the justification for, and feasibility of, such an approach.

中文翻译：

---

解缝的解决方案？重新审视联合雇主的概念

摘要

除其他事项外，《泰勒评论》出于法定目的解决了员工和工人身份的问题，以及如何更新当前法律以反映现代工作场所的现实情况和发展工人敬业度模型。但是，它没有就就业保护立法的目的，提出与雇主身份这一重要且密切相关的问题有关的改革建议。特别是，在报告中未考虑或建议采用“职能性”雇主方法来确定遵守雇佣法要求的责任的方法（例如“联合雇佣”模式）是否适合该问题，也未在其报告中提出建议。由于某些就业法规在适用于“合同”雇主时受到限制，导致对就业保护标准的认识不足。尽管有强烈的反对意见采取职能性用人方法，但最近的国内判例法和有关美国联合用人概念运作的持续辩论为功能性用人模型的范围和设计提供了宝贵的观点，可以为任何有关其合理性和可行性的辩论，