Introduction

The case of Coutts & Co Plc & Anor v. Cure & Anor ([2004] UKEAT 0395_04_1709) scrutinizes the time constraints imposed on fixed-term employees seeking redress for less favorable treatment under the Fixed Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002. The dispute arose when the Applicants, Mr. P R Cure and Mr. P Fraser, alleged that they were denied bonuses that were granted to comparable permanent employees, solely based on their fixed-term contracts. Represented by Mr. Oliver Segal and Mr. Brian Napier QC, the Applicants contended that Coutts & Co Plc unlawfully treated them less favorably. The Respondents defended the decision's lawfulness and argued that the Applicants' claims were filed beyond the stipulated time limits.

Summary of the Judgment

The Employment Tribunal initially determined that the Applicants' complaints were submitted outside the three-month time limit specified by the Regulations, with the complaints dating back to November 2002. However, exercising discretion under Regulation 7(3), the Tribunal deemed it just and equitable to allow the claims to proceed despite their tardiness. It awarded compensatory sums of £816.27 and £892.50 to Mr. Cure and Mr. Fraser, respectively. The Respondents appealed this decision on two main grounds: (1) the Applicants were out of time to present their claims, and (2) the Applicants were not treated less favorably solely due to their fixed-term status. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) ultimately dismissed the Respondents' appeals, upholding the Tribunal's discretion to accept the late complaints and affirming that the Applicants were indeed subjected to less favorable treatment based on their fixed-term contracts.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references numerous legal precedents to underpin its reasoning:

• O'Neill v Governors of St Thomas More RCVA Upper School and Bedfordshire CC [1996] IRLR 372, illustrating the "effective and predominant cause" test for discrimination.
• Amies v Inner London Education Authority [1977] ICR 308, establishing time limits for discriminatory actions.
• Cast v Croydon College [1998] IRLR 318, differentiating between 'one-off' and 'continuing' discriminatory acts.
• Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Khan [2001] IRLR 830, addressing the subjective test in discrimination cases.
• Breton v Unifirst Inc, clarifying the interpretation of "fixed-term contracts" within the Regulations.

These cases collectively informed the Tribunal's approach to determining both the timeliness of the Applicants' complaints and the basis of their alleged discrimination.

Legal Reasoning

The core legal question revolved around when the time limit for filing a complaint began. The Tribunal identified November 13, 2002, as the effective date of detriment, which was when the Respondents communicated the detailed exclusion of fixed-term employees from the bonus scheme. The Respondents argued that the initial decision in early 2001 fell outside the Regulations' effective date (October 1, 2002), rendering the claims time-barred. However, the Tribunal and subsequently the EAT upheld that the detriment occurred in 2002, hence allowing the claims.

Additionally, regarding the second ground of appeal, the court affirmed that the Applicants were treated less favorably explicitly because of their fixed-term status. The absence of the word "solely" in Regulation 3(1) was interpreted to mean that as long as being a fixed-term employee was a reason for less favorable treatment, regardless of other factors, it constituted discrimination.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for fixed-term employees and employers alike:

• Time Limits Flexibility: The Tribunal's discretion to allow late claims underlines the necessity of just considerations in employment disputes, potentially encouraging more equitable outcomes.
• Clarification of Discrimination Grounds: Affirming that fixed-term status alone can be a valid ground for less favorable treatment enhances protections for non-permanent employees.
• Guidance for Future Cases: The detailed analysis of when detriment occurs provides a clearer framework for determining the applicability of time limits in discrimination claims.

Employers must now exercise greater caution to ensure that fixed-term employees are accorded benefits comparable to their permanent counterparts, especially regarding discretionary bonuses and other non-contractual benefits.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Fixed-Term Contract

A fixed-term contract is an employment agreement that specifies an end date or condition under which the employment will terminate, such as the completion of a particular task or project.

Less Favourable Treatment

Less favourable treatment occurs when an employee receives inferior treatment compared to others, based on specific protected characteristics like employment status (e.g., fixed-term vs. permanent).

Detriment

In employment law, a detriment refers to a negative action or consequence suffered by an employee due to unlawful treatment by their employer, such as exclusion from bonuses or benefits.

Regulation 7(3)

This regulation allows Employment Tribunals to consider complaints presented after the standard three-month time limit if exceptional circumstances make it just and equitable to do so.

Conclusion

The Coutts & Co Plc v. Cure & Anor judgment serves as a pivotal precedent in UK employment law, particularly concerning the rights of fixed-term employees. By affirming the Tribunal's discretion to accept late complaints and recognizing fixed-term status as a valid ground for less favorable treatment, the EAT reinforced the protective scope of the Fixed Term Employees Regulations 2002. This case underscores the judiciary's commitment to equitable treatment in the workplace, ensuring that non-permanent employees are not disadvantaged solely based on their contractual status. Employers are thus prompted to meticulously align their employment practices with anti-discrimination regulations to foster fair and inclusive work environments.