Longstreth v Croydon College (Fixed Term Regulations)

An Employment Tribunal does not err in law merely because an employer used imprecise language to describe the ending of a fixed-term contract. The tribunal must determine the true reason for dismissal, having regard to the reason shown by the employer. The expiry and non-renewal of a fixed-term contract may constitute some other substantial reason and may be fair where the contractual role has ended and no suitable alternative position exists.

Findings concerning fixed-term detriment, reasonable belief for whistleblowing, causation, limitation, statutory grievance requirements, case management and adequacy of reasons are primarily matters for the tribunal unless an error of law is shown.

The Claimant, a law lecturer, appealed against an Employment Tribunal judgment dismissing claims of race discrimination, victimisation, less favourable treatment as a fixed-term employee, whistleblowing detriment, and unfair dismissal.

She had been employed under a one-year fixed-term contract covering a lecturer’s sabbatical. The Employment Tribunal found that the contract expired when the lecturer returned, that there was no alternative position, and that the dismissal was fair. It also rejected the discrimination and whistleblowing claims on jurisdictional, evidential and substantive grounds.

The appeal raised whether the tribunal had erred in law in its treatment of the claims, the reason for dismissal, the hearing timetable, and the adequacy of its reasons.

1. Application dismissed. The Claimant had not shown any arguable error of law with a reasonable prospect of success. The Employment Tribunal’s conclusions were open to it on the evidence.

2. The race discrimination claims failed both on jurisdictional grounds and, alternatively, on their merits. The claims were out of time and had not been preceded by the required statutory grievance. The tribunal was also entitled to conclude that no prima facie case had been established so as to transfer the burden of proof under section 54A of the Race Relations Act 1976.

3. The fixed-term employee claim was a factual assessment. The tribunal was entitled to find that the treatment complained of was not because of fixed-term status. Its reasoning that such treatment was inconceivable because the status had been agreed was logically difficult, but its substantive findings concerning the bursary and the contract’s expiry were sufficient.

4. The whistleblowing claims failed because the tribunal was entitled to find that there had been no protected disclosure based on a reasonable belief in wrongdoing. In any event, the alleged disclosure occurred after the decision not to renew the contract and therefore could not have caused the dismissal.

5. For unfair dismissal, the correct question under section 98 was the actual reason for dismissal, having regard to the reason shown by the employer. The tribunal was entitled to find that the reason was non-renewal on expiry of the fixed-term contract. That was a potentially fair reason under section 98(1)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The fact that the employer had referred to redundancy did not require the tribunal to adopt that characterisation. The role remained necessary, but the temporary contractual arrangement had ended, and no alternative position was available.

6. The tribunal was entitled to control the hearing timetable and to refuse postponement applications. Its reasons met the applicable standard identified in Meek and Greenwood v NWF Retail Ltd. Appropriate allowance had also been made for the Claimant’s status as a litigant in person.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: The Rule 3(10) application and appeal were dismissed.
• Employment Tribunal: The claims of race discrimination, victimisation, fixed-term employee discrimination, whistleblowing detriment and unfair dismissal were dismissed.