https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/46890146

Ex-Great Britain cyclist Jess Varnish has failed in her attempt to prove she was an employee of British Cycling and UK Sport at an employment tribunal.

The decision means the 28-year-old is highly unlikely to be able to sue both bodies for wrongful dismissal and sexual discrimination after being dropped by GB in 2016.

The context being she lost her chance to sue as she was not an employee of BC. Has no bearing on if the case would have been upheld had she been an employee.

Varnish is due to have baby this week.

Hmmm…

Ummm…? Hmmm? This one is getting deep

Didn’t Sutton famously tell her to go and have a baby when giving her the boot?

I’m not sure the case for being an employee was ever going to stick, but she probably still has a shot with sexual discrimination… Right?

No her case was under employment law – if she’s not an employee she can’t have been sexually discriminated against as an employee. Of course that doesn’t mean she wasn’t discriminated against as an individual but that is not the basis for a claim.

Yep, guess they will either find another way to take the case forwards or it will go untested.

Cowards the lot of them.

Nasty piece of work Sutton. Referring to the paralympic cyclists as gimps, accused of sexual discrimination (upheld) and bullying.

Real charmer.

Shines an ugly light on the dream factory.

No her case was under employment law – if she’s not an employee she can’t have been sexually discriminated against as an employee.

Surprised that the case has failed in this way, given the degree of control, financial and otherwise, that the coaching staff would have exercised over her on a day to day basis. Portraying an athlete as more like someone in receipt of a university grant or sponsorship doesn’t seem to reflect the relationship she would have had with the likes of Sutton.

Could she have taken her ‘grant’ and controlled her day-to-day activities herself, perhaps taken another job to supplement her income, or managed her own training routine? I don’t think so.

Still, I imagine UK Sport as a whole doesn’t want its athletes being handled in this way by the tribunal system, and have probably chucked some expensive lawyering at it.

 given the degree of control, financial and otherwise,

Ironically, she was probably taxed as an employee under IR35*

* I’m guessing,  I don’t know/

Still, I imagine UK Sport as a whole doesn’t want its athletes being handled in this way by the tribunal system, and have probably chucked some expensive lawyering at it.

Id say having to have all athletes as employees is way more terrifying for them than paying out for the discrimination case. The implications of pensions, sick pay etc could be huge. A timely reminder of how most sports people live and what they give up for thier sport.

Ironically, she was probably taxed as an employee under IR35*

* I’m guessing, I don’t know/

It’s tax free. They’re bursaries, grants etc – call it what you will. The aim of it is to allow the athlete to live, eat etc while training full time. UK Sport fund thousands of athletes across dozens of sports in the same way.

Ironically, she was probably taxed as an employee under IR35*

UK Sport gives more than 1,000 athletes up to £25,000 a year tax-free, but it does not offer benefits such as holidays, sick pay and pensions.

So, could this be deemed “fixed term contract” or “zero hours contract” ?

After all the athlete is providing UK Sport with “goods or services” and receives funds for those goods or services provided to UK Sport..

I’d be seeking clarity on this because there are rather a lot of athletes in a similar situation..

I think they have got that clarity – which is why they’re rather pleased. It’s a grant and the athletes are not employees. I have to say I do have some sympathy with this as they don’t have the same responsibilities as employees ie to pay tax etc though obvs I have no sympathy with UK sport who have escaped the everyday obligation to ensure people are treated with common decency.

Quite. Most onlookers would view the relationship between a UK elite cyclist and the coaching team at UK cycling as an employee/employer one. She gets money, and gets told where to be, what to do. Failure to do what she is told results in the termination of the relationship.

It’s a message loud and clear to athletes that they don’t have anywhere to turn if the organisation that controls their livelihood and competitive career exposes them to discrimination and bullying.

While I don’t know if JV’s allegations had any substance, this ruling could do with being appealed at a higher level.

Didn’t Sutton famously tell her to go and have a baby when giving her the boot?

Apparently its a phrase Varnish used to use all the time when she had had enough of something. Sutton was just quoting it back to her.

WELL DONE JESS.
Sorry its not gone your way, but well done for standing up for what you believe in.

So, could this be deemed “fixed term contract” or “zero hours contract”

Clearly not, they are ‘funded via grants and bursaries’ like him up there said by the organisation not paid, much like those of us who work are paid and not funded, nor do they pax Tax, NI contributions etc on that funding.

It’s quite frequently in the news how A.N.Other athlete has lost their funding, it’s never reported that they have been made redundant or sacked like a normal employee.

Didn’t Sutton famously tell her to go and have a baby when giving her the boot?

Allegedly. However what’s your point? She should never have had any children at any point because Sutton suggested it.

It’s a message loud and clear to athletes that they don’t have anywhere to turn if the organisation that controls their livelihood and competitive career exposes them to discrimination and bullying.

No. It says you don’t have the status and protection of an employee, if you aren’t an employee. It’s not a difficult idea. If you want to be protected as an employee then you need to be an employee. I’ve been both self-employed and employed over the last decade. Both ways have pros and cons but you can’t have all the pros and none of the cons.

Allegedly. However, what’s your point? She should never have had any children at any point because Sutton suggested it.

No point really, I’m just noting that the imminent birth was reported in the BBC article, but isn’t relevant to the case, so I suppose I’m just being a bit of a childish dick about it…

TBH I sort of agree with the ruling in so much as it wasn’t a proper employer/employee relationship. But is employment law the only route? I still think there’s a case that UK Sport/BC had a duty of care to her in so much as they are a government funded body given responsibility for the funding, mentoring, development, etc of elite level athletes, she was one, and something went wrong.

Perhaps the more fundamental question is if UK sport aren’t accountable for the well-being of elite level athletes but can place various physical and phycological demands/performance expectations on them, who is?

And if they’re considered more like “grant funded students” there still needs to be a structure in place for that too, if we’re drawing parallels to academic organisations and those studying under them universities are recognised as having a (limited) duty of care for students.

My understanding is (and I’m probably wrong) UK sport are only really responsible to government (minister for sport?) for delivering results in elite level, international competition and the means and methods by which they do that do not really seem to be subject to proper oversight…
Does that not put us one step away from being like Russia?

No. It says you don’t have the status and protection of an employee, if you aren’t an employee. It’s not a difficult idea. If you want to be protected as an employee then you need to be an employee

Protection from bullying and discrimination should be universal and people should be responsible for that.

And if they’re considered more like “grant funded students” there still needs to be a structure in place for that too, if we’re drawing parallels to academic organisations and those studying under them universities are recognised as having a (limited) duty of care for students.

I got a council grant when I went to university. There were rules in place about re-paying it if I dropped out but other than that, the council had zero involvment in my course, where I studied or even the qualification that I graduated with.

The university was expected to do all the relevant work with duty of care to students, not the grant funding organisation (in this case my local council).