Tanna v Post Office
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Year | 1981 |
| Date | 1981 |
| Court | Employment Appeal Tribunal |
Discrimination, Race - Employment - Sub-postmaster - Appointment as sub-postmaster - Whether employment under contract “personally to execute any work or labour” - Jurisdiction of industrial tribunal to hear complaint -
The applicant complained to an industrial tribunal that, by refusing to interview him for, or offer him, the position of sub-postmaster, the Post Office had unlawfully discriminated against him on the ground of his race, contrary to section 4 (1) (a) and (c) of the Race Relations Act 1976.F1 The industrial tribunal considered as a preliminary issue whether they had jurisdiction to hear the claim on the ground that the job of sub-postmaster was not “employment” within the meaning of section 78 (1) of the Act. It was agreed between the parties that under the Post Office rules the sub-postmaster provided the premises and that he was responsible for seeing that the work of the Post Office was carried out either by himself or by staff chosen and disciplined by him. The tribunal concluded that there was no obligation on the applicant to do any of the work himself, that he was not obliged “personally to execute” the work within the meaning of section 78 (1), and that they had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint.
On the applicant's appeal: —
Held, dismissing the appeal, that the wording of section 78 (1) of the Act of 1978 that employment meant employment under a contract “personally to execute any work or labour” required that the person entering into the contract was under an obligation to do some part of the work himself and that since, on the basis of the agreed facts, the applicant was merely responsible for seeing that the work of the Post Office was carried out and was under no obligation to perform any of the duties himself, the requirements of section 78 (1) were not satisfied and the industrial tribunal had correctly held that they had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint.
The following case is referred to in the judgment:
Hitchcock v. Post Office [
The following additional cases were cited in argument:
Bramble v. Clibbens Car Hire (unreported), August 17, 1978.
Rice v. Fon-A-Car [
Appeal from an industrial tribunal sitting in Manchester.
The applicant, Rohat Tanna...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hashwani v Jivraj
...respondent to two earlier cases which focus on the question whether a contract is one "personally to execute any work or labour": see Tanna v Post Office [1981] ICR 374 and Hugh-Jones v St John's College, Cambridge [1979] ICR 848. However, none of these cases considered the approach in th......
-
Kelly v Northern Ireland Housing Executive ; Loughran v Same
...the realm (e.g. Ryder v. Warde [1848] 154 E.R. 405; Sharman v. Sanders [1853] 138 E.R. 116.) He referred also to Tanna v. Post Office [1981] I.C.R. 374 where the appellant applied to be appointed as a sub-postmaster. He was required only to provide premises and to ensure that services were ......
- Wolstenholme v Post Office Ltd; Hayward v Post Office Ltd; Tooby v Post Office Ltd; Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Post Office Ltd
-
Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd v Gunning
...the party performing the relevant work. But there was no distinct argument before him on the point at issue here. On the other side in Tanna v. Post Office, (1981) Industrial Court Reports 374, where Sir Gordon Slynn, on analogous provisions of the Race Relations Act 1976, held that some ob......