The claimant was employed as a chief officer on a number of vessels which ordinarily sailed outside of UK and European waters.  He had worked on shore for the last six months of his employment which ended with redundancy in 2017.  The claimant stated that he had been discriminated against on the basis that the respondent did not pay him a pension payment due to his age.  The issue arising in these proceedings was whether he had settled any claim in relation to age discrimination when he signed a redundancy agreement which waived his right to bring various claims, including age discrimination.

The Tribunal, at first instance, found that he had settled any claim when the redundancy agreement had been signed.   The claimant appealed this citing that Section 147 of the Equality Act 2010 did not allow claims to be settled before they had arisen.  That being the case, the claims had to be known to the parties for a settlement to be made. It must be noted that the respondent also issued an appeal against the Tribunal’s decision citing that the Tribunal and EAT did not have jurisdiction due to the nature of the claimant’s work.

On the issue of the settlement agreement, the EAT allowed the appeal.  They stated that ‘relates to the particular complaint’ as stated in the legislation did not mean that it could be a complaint that might or might not occur in the future.   Therefore, it had to be a known complaint before it could be settled.   As the age discrimination claim was not known at the time the redundancy agreement stating that claims could not be brought for age discrimination did not bar this claim from being brought.  The focus was on whether the complaint was known rather than barring particular causes of action from yet unknown complaints.

The EAT also allowed the appeal from the respondent relating to jurisdiction.   This was on the basis that the claimant worked on board a ship.  The EAT did outline that working ‘on board a ship’ as noted in the legislation was a colloquialism and did not require the employee to be physically on a ship at the time of the action arising.   The fact that the claimant was on-shore at the time of the claim did not mean that the Tribunal had gained jurisdiction.  Therefore, the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction and the claim was excluded.

Practical Lessons

Somewhat of a pyrrhic victory for the claimant here considering that they won their appeal on settlement agreements but it means nothing as the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claim at all.   On settlement agreements though, the case demonstrates how there cannot be a carte blanche agreement which would stop any claims from being brought.  The Equality Act (only applying in England and Wales) restricts this as the agreement must relate to a particular complaint meaning that it is known rather than restricting claims generally.  This does restrict employers from seeking protection through such generalised documents as may be used in redundancy scenarios.  
https://www.gov.uk/employment-appeal-tribunal-decisions/mr-charles-melvin-bathgate-v-technip-uk-ltd-and-others-2022-eat-155