Claimant v The Fremaux Delorme Company Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
Claimant withdrew automatic unfair dismissal claims under s103A ERA 1996 (whistleblowing) and s100 ERA 1996 (health and safety) against the second respondent on the basis that he accepted he was not an employee of Harrods.
Direct sex discrimination claims against both respondents remain outstanding. This preliminary hearing dealt only with status issues and amendment applications.
Direct sexual orientation discrimination claims against both respondents remain outstanding. This preliminary hearing dealt only with status issues and amendment applications.
Harassment claims based on sex against both respondents remain outstanding. This preliminary hearing dealt only with status issues and amendment applications.
Harassment claims based on sexual orientation against both respondents remain outstanding. This preliminary hearing dealt only with status issues and amendment applications.
Victimisation claims against both respondents remain outstanding. This preliminary hearing dealt only with status issues and amendment applications.
Whistleblowing detriment claims under s47B ERA 1996 against both respondents remain outstanding. Tribunal found claimant is a worker under extended definition in s43K for whistleblowing purposes in relation to second respondent.
Facts
Claimant was employed as sales assistant by first respondent (Fremaux Delorme) from October 2021 to June 2023, working in their bedlinen concession within Harrods department store from May 2022. He was dismissed following disciplinary proceedings in June 2023. The relationship involved a concessionaire agreement between first respondent and Harrods which required adequate staffing, adherence to Harrods policies, store approval for all staff, and gave Harrods the right to remove store approval. Claimant wore Harrods badge, attended daily briefings, received store discount, and occasionally assisted Harrods customers beyond the concession.
Decision
Tribunal held claimant was not a limb(b) worker for Harrods under s.230(3)(b) ERA 1996 or s.83(2)(a) EqA 2010 because there was no implied contract for personal service — the helping out in the store lacked sufficient clarity, obligation, and remuneration to constitute a contract. However, claimant was a worker under extended definition in s.43K ERA 1996 for whistleblowing purposes because terms of his engagement were substantially determined by both first respondent and Harrods through the concessionaire agreement and store approval process. All four amendment applications (adding perceived disability discrimination, time theft disclosure, conspiracy claims, and nine individual respondents) were refused due to delay, lack of clarity, and balance of hardship to parties.
Practical note
Concession workers in department stores can fall under the extended s.43K worker definition for whistleblowing even if not limb(b) workers, where the host retailer substantially determines terms of engagement through approval processes and operational requirements.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2214924/2023
- Decision date
- 16 November 2024
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- retail
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Sales assistant
- Service
- 2 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No