Cases3312554/2023

Claimant v Iron Mountain (UK) Services Limited

9 September 2025Before Employment Judge LaidlerBury St Edmundsremote video

Outcome

Other

Individual claims

Whistleblowingnot determined

Preliminary hearing determined the claimant was a worker for purposes of s.43K ERA 1996 protection. First Respondent conceded she was a worker under the extended definition including agency workers. Substantive claim not yet heard.

Direct Discriminationnot determined

Preliminary hearing determined claimant was a contract worker under s.41 Equality Act 2010 in relation to the First Respondent. The claimant was employed by Bishops and supplied to Iron Mountain under a contract between them. Allegations are against First Respondent's team leaders and supervisors. Substantive claim not yet heard.

Harassmentnot determined

Preliminary hearing determined claimant was a contract worker under s.41 Equality Act 2010. Claimant's evidence confirmed all discriminatory and harassment actions were by Iron Mountain team leaders and supervisors. Substantive claim not yet heard.

Facts

The claimant was employed by Bishops Facilities Management (a recruitment agency working solely with Iron Mountain) and supplied to work at Iron Mountain's premises as a data entry operative from 2 July 2022. She was engaged on projects for the NHS and HMPO at Iron Mountain's Corby site. All day-to-day work control, training and management was by Iron Mountain. Bishops paid her wages based on timesheets from Iron Mountain. On 12 July 2023, Iron Mountain instructed Bishops to release the claimant and five other workers due to reduced volume. The claimant alleges discrimination, harassment and whistleblowing detriment by Iron Mountain team leaders and supervisors.

Decision

The tribunal determined this was a preliminary hearing on employment status. Both respondents conceded the claimant was a worker for whistleblowing purposes under s.43K ERA 1996. The tribunal found she was a contract worker in relation to the First Respondent under s.41 Equality Act 2010, being employed by Bishops and supplied under a contract between Bishops and Iron Mountain. The Second Respondent was removed from proceedings as all allegations were against Iron Mountain employees.

Practical note

Agency workers supplied under contracts between recruitment agencies and end-users are contract workers under s.41 EqA 2010 and workers under s.43K ERA 1996, giving them protection against discrimination and whistleblowing detriment by the principal/end-user.

Legal authorities cited

United Taxis Ltd v Comolly and others [2023] EAT 93Day v Lewisham & Greenwich NHS Trust [2016] IRLR 415Harrods Ltd v Remick [1998] 1 All ER 52Leeds City Council v Woodhouse & Anor [2010] EWCA Civ 410Boohene v The Royal Parks Ltd CA-2023-000978

Statutes

s.41 Equality Act 2010s.43K Employment Rights Act 1996s.83 Equality Act 2010s.230 Employment Rights Act 1996

Case details

Case number
3312554/2023
Decision date
9 September 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
professional services
Represented
Yes
Rep type
solicitor

Employment details

Role
data entry operative
Service
1 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No