In person For the First v Mr Brockley, Solicitor For the Second Respondent: Ms J Veimou, Litigation Consultant — 2024

At a preliminary hearing by CVP in Bury St Edmunds on 29 January 2025, Employment Judge Laidler sitting alone heard evidence from the claimant, Francesca Kidner for Iron Mountain and Danielle Bishop for Bishops. The tribunal had previously adjourned the matter so the parties could address section 41 Equality Act 2010 and section 43K Employment Rights Act 1996, in addition to the provisions already under consideration on status.

On the evidence, the tribunal found that the claimant was engaged by Bishops as a data entry operative from 2 July 2022 and was specifically recruited for work with Iron Mountain. It found that the written 'Short Form Purchase of Goods and Services Agreement' between Bishops and Iron Mountain was in substance a contract for the supply of temporary staff, and that the hourly rates, holiday pay, pension deductions and other terms in the schedules reflected that arrangement. The tribunal accepted that Bishops employed the claimant, but had no control over the work she did at Iron Mountain, there was no substitution, Iron Mountain provided training, and timesheets came from Iron Mountain.

The tribunal held that the claimant was a contract worker within section 41 Equality Act 2010 because she was employed by Bishops and supplied to Iron Mountain in furtherance of a contract to which Iron Mountain was a party. It also recorded that both respondents conceded that the claimant was a worker for protected disclosure purposes within section 43K ERA 1996. The judgment did not determine the substantive merits of the discrimination or whistleblowing claims.

The Second Respondent's application to be removed from the proceedings was granted because the allegations were not made against it or anyone employed by it. The judgment made no monetary award and made further case management orders so the claims could proceed against the First Respondent only.