Mr F Neckles v London General Transport Services Ltd — 2017

The preliminary hearing addressed whether the claimant, a lay member of the Employment Tribunal, was a worker entitled to bring a protected disclosure detriment claim under the Employment Rights Act 1996, and whether the acts relied on for an Equality Act victimisation claim could be protected acts.

On the protected disclosure issue, the Tribunal held that the claimant was a judicial office holder and did not work under a contract of employment or any other relevant contract. Applying Gilham, it concluded that a contractual relationship was required for worker status under section 230(3) ERA in this domestic statutory context, and that the Tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction to hear the section 47B claim.

On the Equality Act issue, the parties agreed that several letters and a formal complaint relied on by the claimant were potentially protected acts under section 27 Equality Act 2010. The respondents did not accept that all or any of those acts would ultimately be found to be protected acts after facts were heard, and disputed that any victimisation occurred. Those issues were left for later proceedings.