Background:

The claimant was employed by the respondent as a Research Scientist and worked with a second respondent, a professor, on a series of fixed-term contracts.  The last was extended to March 2019.  The claimant complained that the second respondent had plagiarised his work and unsurprisingly the relationship between the two had broken down. The claimant applied for permanent status and this was unsuccessful.  The contract was terminated at the end of its term and he brought claims relating to unfair dismissal.

Outcome:

The claimant brought claims relating to unfair dismissal and stating that he was a permanent employee pursuant to Regulation 8 of the Fixed-Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002.  He also alleged that he was subject to detriments as a result of protected disclosures. The Tribunal agreed that the complaints relating to plagiarism did amount to protected disclosures. Despite being recognised as protected disclosures, the Tribunal held that he had been fairly dismissed by reason of redundancy.

The claimant appealed to the EAT citing that they were wrong to state his continued employment under a fixed-term contract was justified on objective grounds relating to the funding basis of his role. The EAT held that the Tribunal was entitled to find that the claimant had not become a permanent employee as a result of the 2002 Regulations. They held that once four years had been met a later renewal to a fixed-term had to be justified on objective grounds.   The Tribunal’s judgment was implicit in considering the justification and whilst not all Tribunals would have reached that decision it was held that the decision was not perverse.

In terms of detriment relating to protected disclosure, the Tribunal’s reasoning did not justify the conclusion. The EAT held that there was a failure to make express findings on the detriments and whether the disclosures relating to plagiarism as it could have led to the breakdown with the second respondent and the effect it would have on whether the contract would be extended. This part of the claim was remitted. Additionally, the claim relating to unfair dismissal was successful as the Tribunal failed to expressly state if the respondent had concluded it was futile to further consult or look for further alternative employment for the claimant. Therefore, it was not safe to state the dismissal procedure was fair without this being fully explored. This element being remitted back to the Tribunal.

Practical Guidance for Employers:

An interesting case relating to fixed-term contracts being regularly renewed and the issue of permanence arising. It is not a blanket acceptance that once four years arises that it will amount to permanence instead there can be additional fixed-term contracts insofar as they are objectively justified. This was the case here when it came to how the claimant’s role was funded. The more difficult aspect was the working relationship with another colleague, how it related to the funding and the disclosure that the claimant had made. This did give rise to procedural issues leading to the case being remitted back to the Tribunal.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66fa75ea30536cb92748294f/Dr_A_Moghaddam_v_1__Chancellor__Masters__and_Scholars_of_the_University_of_Oxford_and_Others__2024__EAT_156.pdf