Murray v. Newha Citizens Advice Bureau

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an appeal by the Appellant against a decision of the Employment Tribunal dated 28 July 1999. The Tribunal had dismissed the Appellant's application for a finding of disability discrimination under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, on the preliminary ground that the Appellant had not applied for "employment" within the meaning of Section 68 of the Act. The complaint arose from the refusal by the Respondent, a Citizen's Advice Bureau, to admit the Appellant as a trainee voluntary adviser. The Appellant contended that this refusal constituted disability discrimination, but the Tribunal decided it lacked jurisdiction because the position applied for did not amount to employment under the statutory definition.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Appellant's application to become a trainee voluntary adviser constituted an application for "employment" within the meaning of Section 68 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
2. Whether the Employment Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the Appellant's disability discrimination claim under the Act.
3. Whether the arrangements surrounding the volunteer training programme could be considered "arrangements" for the purpose of determining to whom employment should be offered under Section 41(a) of the Act.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The document governing the trainee volunteer arrangement constituted a legally binding contract with mutual obligations, contrary to the Tribunal’s finding that there was no obligation on either party.
• The Tribunal erred in treating the absence of pay as the crucial factor in determining whether the arrangement amounted to employment, rather than considering it as one factor among others.
• The reimbursement of expenses under the agreement should not be equated with the absence of contractual obligations; failure to reimburse would give rise to contractual claims.
• The volunteer training programme could constitute an arrangement for determining to whom employment should be offered under Section 41(a), as it forms part of a selection process leading to employment.

Respondent's Arguments

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the Respondent’s legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court reviewed the Employment Tribunal’s decision that the volunteer training programme and position did not constitute employment under Section 68 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The Tribunal had reasoned that there was no binding obligation on either party, the relationship could be terminated at any time by either side, and the absence of pay was decisive. The Court found this reasoning legally flawed, emphasizing that the document contained multiple obligations for both parties and that absence of pay could not be the sole or decisive factor. The Court held that the Tribunal had misdirected itself in law by failing to properly construe the contractual document and by overemphasizing the absence of remuneration. The Court further noted that the Tribunal had not addressed whether the contract was a "contract of service" or a contract personally to do any work, or merely a contract for training. Because no evidence was taken on these factual issues, the Court could not determine jurisdiction itself and remitted the matter for further consideration by an Employment Tribunal. The Court also considered whether the volunteer training programme could be an arrangement under Section 41(a) of the Act, concluding that the Tribunal’s restrictive interpretation was erroneous and that such programmes could fall within the scope of the statutory provision depending on factual findings yet to be made.

Holding and Implications

The Court UPHELD THE APPEAL and remitted the case to an Employment Tribunal for a fresh determination of the preliminary jurisdictional issue. The Tribunal is to consider whether the agreement constitutes a contract of service or a contract personally to do work, and whether the volunteer training programme forms part of the arrangements for determining to whom employment should be offered under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

The direct effect of this decision is to allow the Appellant’s claim to be reconsidered on proper legal and factual grounds. The Court did not establish new precedent but clarified the correct legal approach to interpreting contractual obligations and the scope of arrangements under the statute.