MR E MURRAY v NEWHA CITIZENS ADVICE BUREAU [2000] UKEAT 1096_99_0607
EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
BAILII case number: [2000] UKEAT 1096_99_0607Case No Appeal No. EAT/1096/99Venue 58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS
Between
MR E MURRAYAPPELLANTNEWHA CITIZENS ADVICE BUREAURESPONDENT
Before
His Honour Judge A WilkieDate 6 July 2000
[1]APPEARANCES For the Appellant MS H WILIAMS (of Counsel) 42 Museum Street Bloomsbury London WC1A ILY For the Respondent MR D L REES (of Counsel) Jasmine House Kingston Street Chinnor Oxon OX9 4NL JUDGE WILKIE This is an appeal by Mr Murray against a decision of the London (North) Employment Tribunal promulgated on the 28 July 1999 after a hearing which took place on the 25 June 1999. The decision against which he appeals is a unanimous decision of the Tribunal that it had no jurisdiction to hear his application for a finding of disability discrimination under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 because the Tribunal decided that he did not apply for employment within the meaning of Section 68 of the 1995 Act. It thereby dismissed his application.[2]The Respondent is the Newham Citizen's Advice Bureau Ltd and the complaint concerned the rejection by the Citizen's Advice Bureau of Mr Murray's application to be permitted to become a trainee voluntary adviser. Mr Murray claims that the refusal of his application or offer to undergo that training constituted Disability Discrimination, essentially because it appears the reason he was turned down had to do with his history of mental illness and certain events which had occurred in the past concerning that. We are not at all concerned with the substance of that complaint. All we are concerned with is his appeal against the Tribunal's decision that the application failed on the preliminary point namely that for which he had applied did not amount to employment with in the statutory definition.[3]Section 41(a) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 provides amongst other things as follows(a) in the arrangements which he makes for the purpose of determining to whom he should offer employment(b) by refusing to offer or deliberately not offering him employment. "However there is no obligation in either party the Citizen's Advice Bureau can terminate the relationship at any time; There is no obligation on the "trainee" volunteer adviser to attend if he chooses not to do so. There are no sanctions against him except the termination of the training programme. Likewise the volunteer adviser is under no obligation to commit himself to "advising" work for any period or at all after completing the training period. The Training is a general job training not training for a professional or vocational qualification. The position of volunteer adviser in the Citizen's Advice Bureau is no different to that of other volunteers in other voluntary organisations." In sub paragraph (4) they say this "the crucial factor is the absence of pay. "Expenses" which are reimbursement of travel expenses incurred by the volunteer in travelling to and from his home and his workplace or when travelling on Citizen's Advice Bureau work cannot equate to pay or remuneration or remunerated employment." "The fact that the training programme is a pre condition for paid employment as an adviser with the Citizen's Advice Bureau does not mean that the Applicant in this case was applying for a job with the Citizen's Advice Bureau under a contract of employment. The volunteer training programme is not an arrangement made from the purpose of determining to whom the Citizen's Advice Bureau should offer employment within the meaning of Section 41(a) of the 1995 Act. In order to come within Section 41(a) the arrangements have to be in relation to a specific job vacancy or vacancies."