Case 1300881/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Father Kosmas Pavlidis v The Trustees of the Greek Orthodox Community in Birmingham — 2019
- Case reference
- 1300881/2018
- Decision date
- 3 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dean Representation
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Father Kosmas Pavlidis
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 17 and 18 April 2019, Father Kosmas Pavlidis challenged the ending of his Birmingham posting and said it amounted to unfair dismissal, race discrimination, redundancy-related losses, holiday pay and other payments. The tribunal treated the case as a status question: whether he was an employee, worker or officeholder of the respondent trustees.
The tribunal found that the claimant was a Greek Orthodox priest who had been seconded from the Church of Greece to Birmingham in June 2008 and that, throughout the secondment, he remained a civil servant and employee of the Greek state. It accepted that he received a stipend from the community, accommodation and the use of a car, but held that the appointment was governed by the Church of Greece's secondment arrangements and the Fourth Article of the Articles of Association, not by any express or implied contract with the respondent.
After considering the evidence and authorities including Autoclenz, Percy, Sharpe and Preston, the tribunal rejected the argument that the relationship changed in 2014. It found that the claimant's additional activities for the congregation were consistent with his office as Head Priest and did not show control by the respondent. The tribunal held that there was no contract between the parties, that the claimant was not a worker, and that he was not an officeholder of the respondent; on that basis it found that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaints and dismissed them.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed after the tribunal found there was no express or implied contract of employment between the claimant and the respondent, so it had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Dismissed on the same jurisdictional basis: the tribunal found the claimant was not an employee within s.83 Equality Act 2010 and not a worker of the respondent. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Redundancy | Dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant was not employed by the respondent and therefore could not entertain the complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction after the tribunal found no employment relationship with the respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The judgment refers generally to 'other payments' but does not identify the legal basis in the extracted text; the complaint was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.83 Equality Act 2010
- s.230 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher
- President of the Methodist Conference v Preston
- Percy v Church of Scotland Board of National Mission
- Sharpe v The Bishop of Worcester
- New Testament Church of God v Stewart
- Gilham v Ministry of Justice
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.