London Borough Of Waltham Forest v Martin

Employment Tribunal jurisdiction under Part II of the Race Relations Act 1976 is confined to discrimination in the employment field. A public authority’s decision to prosecute an employee, or to prosecute rather than impose an administrative penalty, remains an exercise of its public prosecutorial function. It does not become employment discrimination merely because the person prosecuted is also an employee, the information arose through the employment relationship, or the prosecution later affected employment. The appropriate statutory route is under Part III. A time-extension decision must be reconsidered where its original basis included acts outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. Delay, the relevance of other proceedings, and the expiry of a disciplinary warning may be relevant, but a general public interest in discrimination claims is not necessarily a relevant factor.

Mr Martin, a black part-time bus driver employed by the respondent local authority, alleged race discrimination in three matters: the decision to prosecute him for benefit fraud, the decision to prosecute rather than impose an administrative penalty, and the two-year duration of a final written warning.

The Employment Tribunal declined to strike out the first two allegations and held that it was just and equitable to extend time for all three complaints. The council appealed. The central issues were whether the prosecutorial decisions fell within the employment field and whether the time-extension decision could stand after those allegations were removed.

1. Prosecutorial decisions. The appeal was allowed on the jurisdiction issue. Section 54(1) of the Race Relations Act 1976 confers Employment Tribunal jurisdiction only over acts unlawful under Part II. Section 4(2), including detriment, is confined by context to the employment field.
2. The council’s decisions to prosecute Mr Martin and not to impose an administrative penalty instead were made in its capacity as prosecuting authority and concerned him as a benefits claimant and local resident. Under Part III, including section 19B(1), discriminatory acts by a public authority in carrying out its functions fall within the civil jurisdiction provided by section 57. The fact that the authority was also Mr Martin’s employer did not alter the legal field or confer Employment Tribunal jurisdiction.
3. The prosecution’s possible indirect effects on employment, the alleged misconduct of investigating officers, and the fact that employment records helped reveal the benefits discrepancy did not bring the prosecutorial decisions within the employment field. Shamoon v Chief Constable of Royal Ulster Constabulary [2003] ICR 337 supported that contextual limitation. Ministry of Defence v DeBique [2009] All ER (D) 258 did not establish the contrary proposition, since the relevant observation was an aside and the employment-field issue had not arisen.
4. Time extension. The appeal was also allowed in relation to the decision that it was just and equitable to extend time for the remaining complaint concerning the length of the final written warning. That decision had been based on the supposed link between the warning and the prosecutorial allegations. Once those allegations were outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, the foundation of the decision was removed. The issue was remitted to the Employment Judge for reconsideration. The extent of delay is relevant, as recognised in British Coal Corporation v Keeble [1997] IRLR 336. The Employment Judge was also directed to reconsider the relevance of the benefit proceedings, the warning’s expiry, legal advice, and the asserted public interest in discrimination claims.

• Employment Tribunal: Refused to strike out the allegations concerning prosecution and the alternative administrative penalty, and held under section 68(6) of the Race Relations Act 1976 that it was just and equitable to extend time.
• Employment Appeal Tribunal: Allowed the council’s appeal on both issues. The prosecutorial allegations were outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The time-extension issue concerning the final written warning was remitted to the Employment Judge for reconsideration.