David Flood of Counsel For both v Respondent — 2019

The tribunal considered a preliminary issue on employment status arising from the claimant's long-running secondment to the University of Nottingham as a Programme Director in the School of Psychology. It accepted that she had worked in the role for many years and was integrated into the department, but also found that she was paid through Nottingham City Council, remained a member of the Local Government Pension Scheme, recorded leave and sickness through the Council, and treated the Council as her employer in grievance and other correspondence. The tribunal found that the University influenced pay and hours, but that any change still required the Council's agreement.

The claimant's case was that she had become an employee of the University over time, but the tribunal rejected that submission. It held that there was no express contract between the claimant and the University and no necessity to imply one from the conduct of the parties. The tribunal relied on the existing Council contract, which it found fairly and properly reflected the bargain struck, and held that the secondment arrangement explained how the claimant worked at the University even over a long period. It also rejected the argument that the claimant had become a "de facto" employee.

The tribunal concluded that, at all material times, the claimant was an employee of the Council and not of the University, and that she was a contract worker supplied to the University by the Council. On that basis, the claims for unfair dismissal and equal pay against the First Respondent were dismissed. The judgment states that the outcome of this hearing did not affect the claimant's separate complaints of victimisation and direct sex discrimination, which were not determined on this occasion.