The UK Supreme Court had a similar case last week -
http://supremecourt.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2012_0229_Judgment.pdf.

The Court held unanimously that a partner in a limited liability
partnership (LLP) is a ?worker? within the meaning of the 1996
Employment Rights Act, and as such, entitled to claim the protection
of the Act's whistle-blowing provisions. Much turned on the meaning
to be given section 4(4) of the Limited Liability Partnership Act
2000, which states that ?a member of a limited liability partnership
shall not be regarded?as employed by the [LLP] unless, if he and the
other members were partners in a partnership, he would be regarded for
that purpose as employed by the partnership?. Although the case was
on English law, the court was led by this sub-section into a
discussion of the Scots law doctrine of the personality of the
partnership separate from those of the partners, in which it is
possible (although not by any means settled by any decision) that the
partnership may in some circumstances employ one of its partners.

Hector

--
Hector L MacQueen
Professor of Private Law
Edinburgh Law School
University of Edinburgh
Edinburgh EH8 9YL
UK

SSRN http://ssrn.com/author=463210

Currently working at the Scottish Law Commission tel: (UK-0)131-662-5222


Quoting Neil Foster <neil.foster@newcastle.edu.au> on Wed, 28 May 2014
01:22:19 +0000:

> Dear Colleagues;
> While it is not a decision on the common law of employment (being an
> issue arising under discrimination legislation) the decision of the
> Supreme Court of Canada in McCormick v. Fasken Martineau DuMoulin
> LLP, 2014 SCC 39
> http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/13663/index.do is
> of general interest. The question was whether an equity partner in a
> law firm could claim to be in an "employment" relationship as
> defined in the relevant statute, when he was about to dismissed as
> such due to his age. The court applies the tests of "control" and
> "dependency" to conclude that he was not in such a relationship, but
> is explicit in saying that sometimes a partner in a firm might be
> treated as an employee of a firm in other circumstances- see [46],
> at least for the purposes of discrimination legislation. I was
> interested to see that Abella J referred at [37] to some specific
> Australian legislation in which the question has been dealt with on
> the assumption that partners would not be employees (and hence
> specific provisions have been inserted ensuring their protection in
> relation to particular discrimination grounds.)
> Regards
> Neil
>
> NEIL FOSTER
> Associate Professor
> Newcastle Law School
> Faculty of Business and Law
> MC177 McMullin Building
>
> T: +61 2 49217430
> E: neil.foster@newcastle.edu.au<mailto:Firstname.Lastname@newcastle.edu.au>
>
> Further details: http://www.newcastle.edu.au/profile/neil-foster
> My publications: http://works.bepress.com/neil_foster/ ,
> http://ssrn.com/author=504828
>
>
> The University of Newcastle (UoN)
> University Drive
> Callaghan NSW 2308
> Australia
>
> CRICOS Provider 00109J
>
>
> [http://s.uon.nu/i/1.gif]<http://www.newcastle.edu.au/>
>
>
>
>



--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.