Relations between the Revd Anthony Sharpe, Rector of Teme Valley South in the Diocese of Worcester, and the parochial church council deteriorated to such a point that he resigned. Before an Employment Tribunal he claimed that he had suffered detrimental treatment as a result of making protected disclosures and that he had then been constructively and unfairly dismissed. After a pre-hearing review the Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to determine his claims because there was no contract between the parties and he did not fall within the statutory definition of ‘worker’. After oral argument the appeal was stayed pending the decision of the Supreme Court in Methodist Conference v Preston [2013] UKSC 29. The parties subsequently filed further written submissions on the effect of that decision.

The question before the Employment Appeal Tribunal was whether Mr Sharpe, as a beneficed priest of the Church of England with freehold, was working under a contract of employment or was a worker within the meaning of section 43 K of the Employment Rights Act 1996 as amended. (It should be noted that under the Ecclesiastical Offices (Terms of Service) Regulations 2009 clergy who hold office under common tenure, though not employees, have a right of appeal to an Employment Tribunal if removed from office on grounds of capability: see Regulation 33.) Cox J took the view that the employment status of a minister of religion could not be determined simply by asking whether he or she was an office-holder or an employee, since an individual appointed to work in a particular post might simultaneously be an office-holder and an employee working under a contract of service. There were also a number of important differences between the rules and practices of the Methodist Church and those of the Church of England – not least that there was no equivalent in the Church of England to the process of admission to full connexion and ‘stationing’ of ministers. Finding that the lower Tribunal had erred in concluding that Mr Sharpe was not a ‘worker’ within the meaning of section 230(3)(b), she allowed the appeal and remitted the case to the Employment Tribunal for a fresh hearing. [Frank Cranmer]