Leeds City Council v Woodhouse
Although most workers are protected by the Race Relations Act (RRA) 1976, it is not always clear whether contract workers are covered. In Leeds City Council v Woodhouse, the Court of Appeal said that contract workers are protected if they can show a close working relationship between them and their “principal” and do not always have to show that the principal controlled and influenced their work.
Basic facts
In 2003 Leeds City Council created a number of arms-length management organisations, one of which was called West North West Homes Leeds Ltd (WNWH). Mr Woodhouse (who is black) transferred from the Council to WNWH.
WNWH then contracted out its requirement for building maintenance services to a division of the council called Property Services Division which employed Mr Chapman. He and Mr Woodhouse attended joint meetings.
Mr Woodhouse lodged a grievance in 2005 alleging racial discrimination by Mr Chapman. He then lodged a second grievance in January 2007 in relation to derogatory remarks Mr Chapman was alleged to have made about him. He was not satisfied with his employer’s response on either occasion and eventually lodged a tribunal claim against WNWH, Mr Chapman and the council in May 2007.
The council and Mr Chapman said Mr Woodhouse could not claim race discrimination against them as he was not employed by the council.
Relevant law
Section 7 of the RRA says it is unlawful for a “principal' to discriminate against “contract workers” who are not employed by the principal themselves but by someone else “who supplies them under a contract made with the principal”.
Tribunal and EAT decisions
The tribunal decided that although section 7 seemed to apply to workers supplied to the “principal” by an employment agency, it decided that was too narrow an approach.
It reasoned that as WNWH had been created purely to manage part of the council’s housing stock and was their only client and as the work done was ultimately for the benefit of the council, it concluded that Mr Woodhouse was a contract worker for the council. As such, “both the council and Mr Chapman were potentially liable to him for racial discrimination”.
And the EAT agreed, saying that section 7 should be given a broad interpretation.
Court of Appeal decision
The Court of Appeal has just upheld that decision.
It rejected the argument put forward by the council that for section 7 to apply, Mr Woodhouse had to show that the principal could control or influence his work. The fact that the council benefited from his work was not sufficient to bring him within the law.
Instead, the Court said that although evidence of influence and control would bring a contract worker within the protection of section 7, they did not have to show that in all cases.
It concluded that: “The judge in the present case considered that, due to the extreme closeness of the relationship between the contracting parties, it could properly be said that Mr Woodhouse's work was being done for the council, regardless of the exercise of control or influence. In my view, control and influence are not necessary elements, and it matters not that they have not been demonstrated in the present case."