Neil Hamilton legally employer of sacked Ukip aide, judge rules
NEIL HAMILTON was legally the employer of Ukip’s former chief of staff at the National Assembly, an employment judge has decided – even though it was Mr Hamilton’s successor as leader of the Ukip group who sacked him.
The decision, by Judge Samantha Moore, follows a hearing at Pontypridd County Court earlier this month at which no-one would admit to being the employer of Robin Hunter-Clarke.
One consequence of the ruling appears to be that political aides working for party groups at the Assembly have no continuity of employment, and have no right to stay in post if a new group leader is elected.
Caroline Jones, who ousted Mr Hamilton as Ukip group leader, decided she didn’t want to keep Mr Hunter-Clarke on and dismissed him, but the judge decided there was never a contractual relationship between her and him. The only contract of employment that existed was the one between Mr Hamilton and Mr Hunter-Clarke.
Mr Hamilton argued at the hearing that he could not have been the employer after he ceased to be leader of the Ukip group, because it was only in that capacity that he had access to publicly provided group funds to pay Mr Hunter-Clarke as an employee of the group.
He pointed out that the contract’s description of the employer was “Neil Hamilton or the leader of the Ukip group ‘from time to time’.” He argued that meant Mrs Jones took over his role as employer when she became leader of the group.
But in her decision, the judge stated: “The wording ‘or leader for the Ukip group from time to time’ is, in my judgment, a contractual nullity. There was no ability to bind a future leader to the contract in the absence of any underlying agreement or rules by which a future leader could be privy to that contract. As I have decided the wording after the word ‘or’ is a nullity, the only correct interpretation of the contract is that the respondent [Mr Hamilton] was the employer.”
The judgment concluded: “I recognise the potential wider consequences of my conclusions regarding the construction of the contract. On the wording of the contract the employer of any group staff within the Assembly will be the named Assembly Member.
“The employment relationship cannot transfer to the new leader. This is regardless as to the political group or party involved. [The] Assembly Member who is no longer group leader can no longer employ an employee employed as group staff. Where this leaves that employee is a matter that will need to be determined at a further hearing.”
Scott Tuppen, who represents Mr Hunter-Clarke, said: “We welcome the decision of the judge, and look forward to the next hearing.”
Mr Hamilton said: “This leaves us in the absurd situation where I am regarded as the employer, even though I did not dismiss him, and indeed, backed a bid for Robin to be reinstated. What we have discovered is that under poorly drafted rules, the Assembly Commission has deprived anyone employed by a political group of security of employment. This is unfair and doesn’t sit well with the Assembly’s portrayal of itself as a social democratic employer”.
The next hearing will take place later this year.