Jason Elliott was called to the Bar of Northern Ireland in 2013 and is the Associate Head of School of Law at Ulster University. As a practising barrister, he has developed a largely civil practice representing individuals, companies and public bodies in litigation. This covers a wide range of areas including personal injuries, wills and employment law. In terms of employment law, he has represented both applicants and respondents in the Industrial Tribunal. At Ulster University, Jason lectures extensively on the civil areas of practise such as Equity and Trusts and delivers employment law lectures for both undergraduate and postgraduate students.
Background:
The claimant was engaged as an Associate Hospital Manager. They were appointed by the Trust to act on its behalf and had a statutory function relating to the discharge of patients who had been detained under the Mental Health Act 1983.
The claimant brought complaints relating to detriment as a result of making public interest disclosures. The issue was her status on the basis that she was not an employee of the trust.
Outcome:
The claimant argued that she was a worker and that she was in employment under a contract to do work as set out within the legislation. The respondent argued, on the other hand, that she was independent and that the individuals were not employees or officers of the trust. Indeed, they pointed to the requirement that they be independent from the Trust.
The Tribunal, at first instance, found that the claimant was a worker and was also under a contract personally to do work. As a result, it did have jurisdiction to hear the claim. The respondent appealed to the EAT. The EAT dismissed the appeal. The respondent argued that there was no intention to create legal relations and that it should be regarded as a ‘honorary contract’. The Tribunal found that the requirement for independence did not mean that there could not be any employment rights. Indeed, they found that considering the statutory position of the claimant’s role Parliament could have created some exception for these individuals to say they were not workers but this was not the case. Accordingly, it was held that the claimant was a worker and under a contract personally to do work.
Practical Guidance for Employers:
This case yet again adds to the list of decisions on employment status. This looks at a fairly unique role of an individual who requires independence under statute yet that does not mean that there can be no employment rights flowing in relation to the relationship between the worker and the organisation. Employers, especially those who engage those who have to act independently under statute, should be mindful of this when considering the rights and responsibilities governing such a relationship.
The full case is available here:
https://www.gov.uk/employment-appeal-tribunal-decisions/lancashire-and-south-cumbria-nhs-foundation-trust-v-ms-r-moon-2024-eat-4
Continue reading
We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.
Please log in to view the full article.
What you'll get:
- Help understand the ramifications of each important case from NI, GB and Europe
- Ensure your organisation's policies and procedures are fully compliant with NI law
- 24/7 access to all the content in the Legal Island Vault for research case law and HR issues
- Receive free preliminary advice on workplace issues from the employment team
Already a subscriber? Log in now or start a free trial
