| 5°C Belfast

Vicar employment ruling expected


Mark Sharpe claims he was employed by the Bishop of Worcester

Mark Sharpe claims he was employed by the Bishop of Worcester

Mark Sharpe claims he was employed by the Bishop of Worcester

A vicar who claims he was the victim of a four-year campaign of hate is at the centre of a Court of Appeal battle over whether he has the legal right to bring an action for unfair dismissal.

The Rev Mark Sharpe says he was driven out of his parish in Worcestershire after his dog was poisoned, his car tyres slashed and his post tampered with.

His trade union Unite is backing his case and says it is seeking a landmark decision which could lead to all faith workers "finally being awarded basic employment rights".

Mr Sharpe resigned from his post as vicar at Hanley Broadheath near Worcester in 2009 and launched a constructive unfair dismissal claim against the Church of England (CoE).

The case has reached the appeal court after tribunals split over whether he could legally be categorised as an "employee" or a "worker".

Mr Sharpe argues he is employed by the Bishop of Worcester and therefore entitled to protection by legislation, including the 1996 Employment Rights Act.

The CoE maintains he is not an employee but a "religious office holder" under ecclesiastical law.

Initially the CoE view prevailed, and an Employment Tribunal (ET) ruled he was neither an employee nor a worker and blocked his unfair dismissal claim.

But the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) overturned the ET decision in November 2013 and said it had misapplied the law and ordered a complete rehearing of Mr Sharpe's case before a fresh tribunal.

Today three appeal judges - Lady Justice Arden, Lord Justice Davis and Lord Justice Lewison - will rule on which tribunal got the law right.

A central question the court has to decide is whether there was a contract governing the services of Mr Sharpe as a clergyman, and - if there was one - what was its nature.

The CoE contended at a recent hearing that if there was a contract, its nature was not "employment."

Thomas Linden QC, for the Church, argued: "Something more than an appointment to office is needed if a contract is to be established.

"Clearly Parliament intended that those who were appointed as (church) benefice holders should be subjected to the ecclesiastical law framework.

"It would be surprising if at the same time Parliament intended that there was another result, namely that they gained employment rights enforceable by employment tribunals and the county court, and so on."

Mr Sharpe moved to Hanley Broadheath, near Worcester, with his wife and four children in 2005, but stepped down in September 2009 saying he had developed health problems as a result of a campaign of harassment.

His constructive unfair dismissal claim is based on the argument that the Church should have warned him of the nature of the parish and its problems and offered him better support and protection when the harassment began.

Sally Kosky, Unite national officer, said: "It is deeply disappointing that the Church of England has gone to such lengths to avoid its responsibility as an employer.

"It cannot be that on the one hand the church takes huge strides forward on gender equality, yet on the other remains in the dark ages on fundamental employment rights.

"There is much at stake here, not only for Mark, but many other faith workers who are unable to seek justice for unfair treatment."

John Bowers QC, appearing for Mr Sharpe, said part of the vicar's case involved a claim for compensation under the "whistle-blowing" provisions of employment law.

The claim arises from Mr Sharpe's assertions that he received no help or assistance when he reported people who were harassing him.

Mr Bowers told the judges the only way Mr Sharpe could claim compensation of any kind was through the employment tribunal.

Top Videos