EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Worker, employee or neither
This appeal raises the question whether the Claimant, an ordained Minister in the Church of England, was working under a contract of employment, or was a lternatively a ‘worker’ within the meaning of s.43K ERA after he was appointed as Rector in the Teme Valley South Benefice, in the Diocese of Worcester. He presented two claims to the ET, complaining that he had suffered detrimental treatment, as a result of making protected disclosures, and that he was then constructively and unfairly dismissed. After a pre-hearing review the ET held that there was no jurisdiction to determine his claims because there was no contract in existence between the parties and, further, the Claimant did not fall within the statutory definition of ‘worker’.
After oral argument, the appeal was stayed pending the decision of the Supreme Court in Preston/Moore v President of the Methodist Conference. The parties subsequently filed further written submissions on the effect of that decision.
The EAT considered the present state of the law in this area, following Preston, and allowed the appeal, directing that the matter should be remitted for a hearing before a fresh Tribunal in accordance with the legal principles set out in this judgment.
Cox DBE J
[2013] UKEAT 0243 – 12 – 2811, [2014] ICR D9
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Sharpe v The Bishop of Worcester CA 30-Apr-2015
Reverend Sharpe applied for the post of Rector of Teme Valley South. The right to present (or nominate) a member of the clergy to this living was vested in Mr and Mrs Miles but a person could not be nominated without the Bishop’s approval, which was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 26 November 2021; Ref: scu.518543