1,337 total views, 3 views today
If a person already in full-time employment with another employer is actually engaged, the question arises as to whether he has the right to request the translation of his additional work engagement into employment? The criminal lawyer brampton will give you all the answers you require.
Although there is a need for a factual situation to be reflected in a legal act – a contract of work engagement – that person would not be able to request the conclusion of a labor contract, nor could he ask the court to recognize his work as a labor relation. This is because it is already in full-time employment, which cannot be “duplicated”. Such work engagement, for example, would meet the conditions for the conclusion of other types of employment contract, such as contract on additional work or work contract – but there is no possibility for the court to conclude on the proposal of a working person that such a contract exists because the court authorized by law to do so only when there is a basis for concluding a contract of employment. Any other agreement will be able to be concluded only by the agreement of the parties in the observed relationship – that is, if it is proposed and agreed by the employer on the one hand and the engaged person on the other.
The fiction of the existence of a labor relationship is clearly limited to the employment contract, and if someone is protected it must meet the general conditions for the establishment of employment – one who does not have the right to do so under a general or special regime of labor relations (depending on which one is relevant in the case in question), will not be able to design it by this fiction.
In addition to these, the engaged person must also fulfill the special conditions related to the nature of his work engagement, the duties he performs and the relationship with other employees and the employer:
It is necessary to have a working engagement, that is, the engaged person does some work. This work must be constant, as is the need for it. Therefore, employment that is temporary and / or occasional is not considered to be of a similar nature. When an engagement will be such a court must determine in each individual case, but it is quite certain that continuity is reflected, except in exceptional and specific professions and jobs, in the day-to-day engagement of an employee. This is also logical, because the existence of a work relationship requires the existence of everyday tasks that the employees will perform – therefore, it cannot be considered (although in theory it can be proven the opposite) that the employer had in mind the employment of an indefinite time person in fact, if the real need for that did not exist at the time of his engagement.