Mr A Watts v London Borough of Havering — 2023

The claimant brought claims for breach of contract/notice pay and victimisation. The tribunal refused to expand the protected acts and detriments beyond the issues recorded after the preliminary hearings, applying Serco Ltd v Wells and amendment principles including Selkent v Moore, Chandhok v Tirkey and Vaughan v Modality Partnership. The tribunal then found that the claimant had an express direct contract with the respondent, that the essential elements of a contract of employment were present, and that Adecco was used as a payment mechanism rather than as the basis for a genuine agency arrangement explaining the whole relationship.

On the breach of contract claim, the tribunal found that it had jurisdiction because the claimant was an employee of the respondent. However, there was no express agreement about termination notice. Considering the claimant's temporary role, his seniority, his length of service, the statutory minimum notice position, the absence of evidence of a custom of three months' notice, and his knowledge of the Adecco notice arrangements used for temporary staff, the tribunal held that four weeks' notice was reasonable. The notice-pay breach of contract claim was therefore dismissed.

On victimisation, the claimant relied on his 15 July 2021 interview with Mr Casson during the investigation into Ms Stanton's grievances. The tribunal found that the claimant made no allegation at that interview that the Equality Act 2010 had been contravened, and that neither the claimant nor the investigator referred to Ms Stanton's age or to age discrimination during the interview. The tribunal held that the interview was not a protected act within s.27(2) EqA.

The tribunal also considered causation in case it was wrong about protected act status. It accepted Ms Chandler's and Ms Taylor's evidence that they did not know about the claimant's interview when giving notice, and found the termination decision was because Ms Taylor was comfortable continuing without the claimant's support and because of financial pressures. The remaining alleged detriments either were not proved, were not detriments, or had no causal link to the interview or the claimant's general support for Ms Stanton. All claims failed and were dismissed, and no monetary award was made.