Mrs Lynn Fowkes v The East Midlands Synod of the United Reform Church — 2022

The parties agreed that the correct respondent was the East Midlands Synod of the United Reformed Church. The tribunal considered the structure of the URC, the claimant's appointment and induction arrangements, the settlement agreements, the Plan for Partnership, the remuneration and housing provisions, and the Respondent's role in concurrence, deployment, oversight and discipline. The claimant's age discrimination case arose from the decision not to extend her ministry beyond age 68.

On the unfair dismissal issue, the tribunal held that the claimant was not an employee for the purposes of section 230 ERA 1996. It accepted that there were features pointing towards a contractual relationship, including agreed terms, remuneration, benefits, mutual obligations and some control, but concluded that the spiritual nature of the role and the level of autonomy in how the ministry was carried out meant the relationship was not one of employment in the stricter ERA sense. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success.

On the Equality Act issue, the tribunal held that the claimant was an employee within the extended definition in section 83 Equality Act 2010 and that it therefore had jurisdiction to hear the age discrimination claim. It found that she undertook to perform the work personally, was subject to sufficient oversight and control, received significant remuneration and benefits, and was not in a position of independent business autonomy. The tribunal said the exact start date for the EqA employment relationship could be addressed further if disputed, and it noted that the claimant had been deployed into other ministries from 2002 while the latest date identified for the St Stephen's ministry was 5 September 2010.

The respondent's application for a deposit order under Rule 39 was refused. The tribunal considered that there were material factual issues on the age discrimination claim, including justification of the retirement age and proportionality, and was not persuaded on the material before it that the claim had little reasonable prospect of success. No monetary remedy was determined at this preliminary hearing.