clearly have taken place” in the limited time available, the EAT decided that an order for 60 days was appropriate.
SUPREME COURT: METHODIST MINISTER IS NOT AN EMPLOYEE
15 May 2013
In a recent case the Supreme Court have ruled on the employment status of a Methodist Minister.
Thank you to Daniel Barnett’s Employment Law Journal for the coverage of this case.
Was a Methodist minister an employee for the purposes of unfair dismissal protection?
No, says the Supreme Court (Baroness Hale dissenting), allowing the appeal and restoring the judgment of the ET in President of the Methodist Conference v Preston .
The minister carried out her functions under an agreement that entitled her to a stipend, accommodation and a pension; she paid tax under Schedule E, and was entitled to holiday and sick pay and subject to the possibility of disciplinary action. But the ET had felt bound by President of the Methodist Conference v Parfitt [1984] ICR 176 to hold that the spiritual character of the arrangement meant that there was no intention to create legal relations, so no contract. The EAT and the CA had disagreed, holding that held that the reasoning of the CA in Parfitt could not survive the majority speeches in a more recent HL case, Percy v Board of National Mission of the Church of Scotland [2006] I.C.R. 134. The majority of the Supreme Court holds that although there is no presumption against an intention to create legal relations in the appointment of a minister of religion, a consideration of the detailed internal arrangements of the Methodist Church leads to the conclusion that in this case there was no such intention; so no contract.
The gist of Baroness Hale’s succinct and pragmatic dissent: ‘it quacks like a duck and swims like a duck.’
STRIKING OUT TRIBUNAL CLAIMS
20 June 2013
Can a discrimination claim be struck out for a wilful failure on the part of a claimant to comply with tribunal orders? This was the case of Ahmed v Bedford Borough Council , brought before the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) which concluded that not unless consideration has been given to whether the failure has rendered a fair trial impossible. The Claimant brought claims of race, religious belief and disability discrimination, but unreasonably failed to comply with the tribunal’s order that he be examined by a medical expert for the purposes of a PHR on the issue of disability. The tribunal struck his claim out in its entirety as a result. The EAT held that the issues in such a situation were: whether the conduct in question was scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious; whether a fair trial was still possible; and whether the sanction of strike out was proportionate.
CIPP Policy News Journal
16/04/2014, Page 104 of 519
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker