The claimant was a charity trustee elected to the role of President-Elect of the respondent. He had campaigned to be President-Elect as he was concerned about how the charity was being managed and made protected disclosures to that effect. He contended that he should be considered as a worker to protect himself from detriment for making protected disclosures. He also relied on Article 10 read with Article 14 ECHR. The ET concluded that there was no intention to enter into a contractual relationship and properly asked the questions necessary to determine whether the case fell within the ambit of Convention rights and broadly whether he had had been treated less favourably than others in an analogous situation.

While the parties agreed Convention rights were engaged HHJ Tayler finds the ET had not adequately considered the relevant circumstances and conduct the broad-brush assessment necessary to decide whether there was an “analogous situation” between the claimant and employees or limb B workers; or whether being a charity trustee, President-Elect and/or President is an “other status”. The ET also failed to consider the possibility of focusing on the issue of justification. The judge also notes that a worker is protected from being subject to a detriment by his current employer for making a protected disclosure to that employer prior to the commencement of the employment.