Applications for a PhD studentship was an application for a course of study and not to become a worker or an employee of the University.

The claimant applied for two PhD studentships at the respondent institution.  One in Law and another in Applied Social Policy Sciences.  As part of the advertisement, it set out the criteria and the financial support. The financial support under the Vice Chancellor’s Research Studentship and scholarships from the Department for the Economy set out that the tuition fees would be paid along with a maintenance grant of up to £19,000 per annum. 

The respondent’s regulations also stated that the PhD is awarded after successful completion of the approved programme of research and submission of a thesis to the satisfaction of the examiners.  Further, it stated that a full-time candidate shall not undertake or continue any remunerative employment unless it consists of demonstrating at the University and that the demand does not exceed six hours per week.  The claimant was unsuccessful in his application as was his appeal.

The claimant lodged a claim citing disability discrimination and detriment as a result of a public interest disclosure. The claimant argued that the advertisement was a form of recruitment to the University and that the Tribunal had jurisdiction.

The respondent argued that the applications were for study and not employment. They outlined that if the claimant had been successful, he would have been classed as a student, not an employee or a worker.  PhD students are allocated a student number, a student card and are supervised academically and not as an employee.  Additionally, they are not subject to policies or procedures which are applied to employees. They are not subject to disciplinary or grievance procedures but are subject to policies as they apply to students. 

As a result, the Tribunal held that the claimant did not apply for any paid work and was not offered, or denied, any paid work as either an employee or a worker.  The application was for academic study, and the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to entertain such a claim.  Accordingly, the case was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Another case to be added to the list relating to employment status.  In this situation, it was the categorisation of PhD students. This may be muddied by the fact that they can also be referred to as PhD researchers rather than students.  However, in terms of the application process and their categorisation within the respondent it was clear that it was a mode of study rather than an application for work or employment.  

NI Tribunal decisions are available on the OITFET website.