The Difficulties of Identifying the Limits of Statutory Obligations in Employment Relationships: An Analysis under Cameroonian Labour Code and English Law

Abstract

This study has as main objective to critically examine strictly speaking, whether the scope of labour law depends on types of person or the law of persons, or it depends rather on the types of contractual relationship for the provision of work and services. Under the Cameroonian Labour Code and Common law, the problem of identifying the limits of legal obligations in contractual relationships since inception has been drumming bells. This may be as a result of the proper extent of application of common law principles and other types of legal system, especially the Cameroonian labour law regulating contracts involving the performance of services. Generally, the question of “who is a worker and who is not a worker” under the Cameroonian Labour Code and Common Law has always
been a topic of discourse among academic doctors, professors and researchers in the domain of labour law even as we speak. The question who is a worker and who is not a worker” may look simple and pointless, but it is in fact fundamental to an understanding of the protection of workers in any contractual relationship. However, difficulties always arise on the one hand because many individuals out there work for others without being their workers, and on the other hand because employment relationship does not exist, a mass lawful and financial obligation follow which either do not apply at all in other working relationships or, as the case may be, apply to a much lesser extent. Additionally, the question who is a worker is also of vital importance because the 1992 Labour Code does not cover all classes of workers in Cameroon. And a worker not covered by the code cannot evoke the provisions of the code. When the terms "employee" or "servant" are employed, they refer to the presence of an employment contract or a contract of service, as opposed to a contract for services wherein an independent contractor provides services under an agreement for another party. In Labour law, the differentiation between a contract of service and a contract for services is typically essential for three main reasons. Firstly, anybody who is not covered by the provisions of the 1992 labour code cannot get up one day and say his or her contract has been terminated wrongfully. Secondly, the concept of vicarious liability normally extends only to the employer/worker relationship.
In order words, an employer is responsible for the legal consequences of acts done by his worker in the course of his employment. The third reason for this distinction is that there are particular rights and obligations which are implied in an employment contract, but which do not extend to the relationship between an independent contractor and the person for who he is working. In this light, adopting a purely qualitative research method involving purely content analysis of cases and an in-depth content analysis of critical evaluation of primary and secondary data, the
study concludes that, if people want to benefit from the different kind of employment rights under the 1992 labour code they should make sure that they are under a contract of service and not under a contract for services whenever hired to work or to perform a service for anybody.