Secretary of State for Justice

Case Summary

The employment tribunal ruled that Mrs P Varley, a non-legal member of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal, is not a worker for the purposes of the Working Time Regulations 1998 (WTR) or the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA), dismissing her claim for unpaid holiday pay.

Mrs Varley was not a worker within the statutory definition of the Working Time Regulations 1998 and Employment Rights Act 1996, as her role as a non-legal member of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal did not confer worker status.

• •employment status of the claimant under domestic law and EU law
• •claimant's right to holiday pay under WTR and ERA
• •interpretation of 'worker' status under HRA

RESERVED JUDGMENT 1 * EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mrs P Varley Respondent: Secretary of State for Justice Heard at: Leeds Employment Tribunal (by CVP) Before: Employment Judge Deeley On: 30 September, 1 and 2 October 2025 (in public) and on 3 October 2025 (in chambers) Representation Claimant: represented herself Respondent: Mr B Collins KC (Counsel) RESERVED JUDGMENT 1. The claimant’s claim that she has not been paid for holiday that she has taken from 1 October 1998 fails and is dismissed. In particular: 1.1 the claimant is not a ‘worker’ for the purposes of Regulation 2 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 (the “WTR”) (whether (i) under domestic law; or (ii) under the Working Time Directive for complaints relating to periods of leave that pre-date 31 December 2023); 1.2 the claimant is not a ‘worker’ for the purposes of section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (the “ERA”); 1.3 the definition of ‘worker’ under the WTR and/or the ERA should not be interpreted to include the claimant status as a non-legal member, having regard to s3 of the HRA and the claimant’s Article 14 rights (read with Article 8 and/or Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights); and 1.4 the claimant has failed to comply with the notice requirements under Regulation 15 of the WTR. RESERVED JUDGMENT 2 * REASONS INTRODUCTION Tribunal proceedings 1. I considered the following evidence during the hearing: 1.1 a joint file of documents (including a list of holidays that the claimant says she took from 1998 to 31 December 2023 at page 799 of the hearing file) and a separate joint file of authorities; 1.2 witness statements and oral evidence from the claimant and from Mr Robert Edwards (Head of Judicial Pay Policy Projects for the respondent); and 1.3 skeleton arguments provided by each party. 2. I also considered the hel…