Trainee curate meets extended definition of "worker" for whistleblowing claim
A trainee curate has been allowed to proceed with a whistleblowing claim against a Diocesan Board of Finance, after an Employment Tribunal found his occupational status was analogous to that of employee or worker.
Background
In the case of Green v The Lichfield Diocesan Board of Finance, the claimant (Reverend Green) brought whistleblowing and disability discrimination claims against the respondent. As a trainee curate, Reverend Green was not an employee nor a worker, but an office holder. A preliminary hearing was arranged in order to consider his status and whether he was entitled to pursue his complaints.
Status
It is usually necessary to meet the legal definition of employee or worker to bring a whistleblowing claim. However, under limited circumstances it is possible for a claimant to bring a claim if they meet an extended definition of a worker. This is the principle established by the Supreme Court in the case of Gilham v Ministry of Justice, which concerned district judges. In that case, the Supreme court held that holders of judicial office are entitled to whistleblower protection and that to deny them such protection because of their occupational status would breach their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Decision
The Tribunal found that Reverend Green's whistleblowing claim could proceed. Reverend Green's occupational status was analogous to an employee or worker. His human rights would be breached if he was to be denied whistleblowing protection.
In respect of Reverend Green's disability discrimination claim, the Tribunal found that this could not proceed on the same basis because his human rights were not potentially engaged. However, as clergy office holders are expressly protected under the Equality Act, his claims could proceed under a different section of the Act.
Comment
This is a first instance decision so it is not binding on other Tribunals. The Tribunal also emphasised that Reverend Green's case was very much determined on its individual facts. This is nevertheless an interesting application of the Gilham judgment and how it can be applied to provide protection beyond judicial office holders.