VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION
VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION – Protected disclosure
SEX DISCRIMINATION – Post employment
TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS
The Claimant left the service of Greater Manchester Police Authority (‘GMPA’), having agreed a settlement of claims of sex discrimination against it. Eighteen months later, in accordance with the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act (‘PRSRA’), the GMPA ceased to function: its policing role was thereafter performed by the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (‘PCCO’). The Claimant wished to claim for acts of sex discrimination by the PCCO and the Commissioner, harassment, and victimisation of her for not having complained of sex discrimination against the GMPA, though she was not and never had been employed by the PCCO. An Employment Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to consider her claim. The Claimant appealed, arguing that Schedule 15 of the PRSRA, paragraph 5, provided that the PCCO succeeded to the liabilities of the GMPA, and that the duty not to discriminate was such a liability; that in any event, section 108 Equality Act had that effect, and it was necessary to provide for post-termination claims of discrimination and victimisation under the Equality Act and the Employment Rights Act (in respect of whistleblowing) to ensure the effectiveness of the anti-discrimination provisions and of the revised Equal Treatment Directive 2006/54. It was held that ‘liability’ held its natural meaning, and the context tended (contrary to the Claimant’s submissions) to confirm this; that in order to ground liability section 108 required a relationship which had to be between employer and employee, and the Claimant had never been an employee of the PCCO; and that the Equal Treatment Directive did not require that a different interpretation be given to the Act nor was it necessary for it to be effective that there should be one.
[2015] UKEAT 0222 – 15 – 1611, [2016] IRLR 280, [2016] ICR 456
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – BP Plc v Elstone and Another EAT 31-Mar-2010
EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS
VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION: Protected disclosure
The central question in this appeal was whether an employee/worker who complained of suffering a detriment from his current . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.565085