Dr N MacLennan v The British Psychological Society Interveners: and 2 others — 2025

The hearing followed remission from the Employment Appeal Tribunal after the earlier finding that the claimant was not a worker was upheld. The remaining issues concerned whether the claimant, as a charity trustee, was in analogous circumstances with employees or limb (b) workers, whether he was treated less favourably because of that status, and whether any difference in treatment was reasonably justified.

The tribunal found that the claimant's role as charity trustee was not analogous to a worker for the purposes of Part IVA and section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It also found that charity trustee status was an "other status" for Article 14 ECHR purposes and that the claimant was treated less favourably by being unable to bring a whistleblowing claim against the respondent.

The tribunal concluded that the difference in treatment was reasonably justified. It found a legitimate aim in avoiding conflicts of interest and preserving the financial interests of charities, and considered the exclusion from ERA whistleblowing protection proportionate in light of the potential conflict between trustee responsibilities and bringing a claim against the charity.