Ms M Korczak & 16 others v The House of Commons Commission — 2022

This was a 3-hour open preliminary hearing on a single issue: whether the Employment Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the claimants' complaints of unlawful deductions from wages. The claimants argued that section 39(2) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 allowed House of Commons staff to bring proceedings of any description that could be brought by non-parliamentary staff, and that this overrode the wording of section 195 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The respondent argued that section 195 limited the rights expressly conferred on House of Commons staff, and that Part II of the ERA 1996, which contains the wages provisions, was not included.

Employment Judge Wisby accepted the respondent's argument. The judgment held that section 195 ERA 1996 is clear in isolation and does not expressly extend Part II protection to House of Commons staff. The tribunal reviewed the legislative history from the Employment Protection Act 1975, the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978, the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, the Wages Act 1986, and the 1996 consolidation legislation, and concluded that no statutory inroad had been made to allow Part II ERA 1996 claims by House of Commons staff. The tribunal also held that the reference to "rule of law" in section 39(2) ETA 1996 meant a rule of common law, not statute, so section 39(2) did not override section 195 ERA 1996.

The tribunal said the sample Visitor Assistant contracts could not confer jurisdiction on the Employment Tribunal, because jurisdiction is conferred only by Parliament. It also noted that Parliament had expressly dealt with access to justice in section 195(4) ERA 1996 by allowing claims to be brought in the High Court or county court. In the result, the complaints of unlawful deductions from wages were struck out for want of jurisdiction.