Redbridge London Borough Council v Dhinsa

For the exclusion from ordinary unfair-dismissal claims under Employment Rights Act 1996, section 200(2)(a), the relevant question is whether the employee served as a member of a constabulary maintained by virtue of an enactment. The exclusion is not confined to constables appointed under the Police Act 1996, nor does it require the full range of powers exercised by territorial police officers. A person may be a constable where duly sworn or attested before a justice of the peace and appointed to enforce statutory provisions and byelaws. The distinction between a declaration and an attestation is immaterial where both amount to being sworn in as a constable.

Two employees of the Redbridge Parks Police Service brought complaints of ordinary unfair dismissal. They had been appointed as a constable and a sergeant, had made declarations before a justice of the peace, and were required to enforce enactments, byelaws and regulations relating to Redbridge parks.

At a pre-hearing review, the Employment Tribunal held that section 200 did not exclude their claims. The employer appealed. The central issue was whether the claimants were employed in police service within section 200(2)(a) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

1. Appeal allowed. The Employment Tribunal’s decision was set aside. It was declared that both claimants were excluded from pursuing complaints of ordinary unfair dismissal by section 200 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
2. Section 200(2)(a) required consideration of three questions: whether the claimants were constables, whether they were members of a constabulary, and whether that constabulary was maintained by virtue of an enactment.
3. The claimants were constables. Their declarations before a justice of the peace, together with their obligations to enforce the relevant park enactments, byelaws and regulations, constituted being sworn in as constables. The distinction between declarations and attestations was immaterial.
4. The Redbridge Parks Police Service was a body of constables. The claimants served as members of that constabulary, which was maintained by virtue of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government Provisional Order Confirmation (Greater London Parks and Open Spaces) Act 1967 and the Order scheduled to it.
5. The statutory exclusion was not limited to constables appointed under the Police Act 1996. The claimants’ more limited territorial powers did not prevent them from being constables for section 200(2)(a). The decision in Spence v British Railways Board demonstrated that the enactment need not be the Police Act 1996.
6. It was unnecessary to consider section 200(2)(b). The claims concerned ordinary unfair dismissal, rather than dismissal for an inadmissible reason under sections 100 or 103A.

• Employment Tribunal, East London Hearing Centre: At a pre-hearing review on 13 March 2012, the Tribunal held that section 200 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 did not exclude the claims. Reasons were promulgated on 5 July 2012.
• Employment Appeal Tribunal: The appeal was allowed. The Tribunal’s decision was set aside and the claimants were declared excluded from pursuing ordinary unfair-dismissal complaints.