Graham v Plumstead Law Centre

Protection against discrimination in the employment field under the Race Relations Act 1976 depends on the statutory meaning of employment. That meaning requires employment under a contract of service or apprenticeship, or a contract personally to execute work or labour. Voluntary committee members who receive only expense reimbursements, choose when they work and are free to cease working are not employed within that definition. They therefore cannot invoke the employment tribunal’s jurisdiction for a complaint under the employment provisions of the Act.

Mr Graham was a member of the voluntary Management Committee of Plumstead Law Centre. He alleged that his expulsion from the committee was racially discriminatory. The Employment Tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal concluded that they had no jurisdiction because the committee members had no contract of service with the Law Centre or another party.

The issue before the Court of Appeal was whether voluntary committee work, accompanied only by reimbursement of expenses and without any obligation to work at specified times, constituted employment for the purposes of Part 2 of the Race Relations Act 1976.

1. Application dismissed. The application for permission to appeal was dismissed.
2. Part 2 of the Race Relations Act 1976 concerns discrimination in the employment field. The Act defines employment as employment under a contract of service or apprenticeship, or a contract personally to execute work or labour. Related expressions must be construed accordingly.
3. The statutory definition does not extend to voluntary workers who may perform work, or cease to perform it, as they wish. The absence of remuneration is not the only relevant feature. The essential point is that the committee members were not contractually bound to work for the Law Centre.
4. The committee members could choose when to work and take holidays as they wished. Reimbursement of expenses did not create a contract of service. They were therefore not employees of the Law Centre for the purposes of the Act.
5. The Court applied the same principle as in Daley v Allied Suppliers [1983] ICR 90, where a trainee on a work-experience scheme was held not to be employed because he was neither employed nor contractually bound to work for the company. The Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal were accordingly correct to conclude that the employment tribunal had no jurisdiction.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The application for permission to appeal from the Employment Appeal Tribunal was dismissed. The court upheld the conclusion that the employment tribunal had no jurisdiction.
• Employment Appeal Tribunal: The claim was rejected on jurisdictional grounds because the committee members had no contract of service.
• Employment Tribunal: The tribunal likewise concluded that it had no jurisdiction.