A company which refused to recognise a union shop steward as such, because of the way in which he behaved, was treating him less favourably to restrict those activities, despite the fact that he had not been treated worse as an employee.
In de-recognising Mr McCoid as a shop steward: ‘The only effect of the action taken by the employer is to deprive Mr McCoid of having the status and being able to perform the activities of a shop steward on behalf of his fellow employees’. The Court distinguished between actions taken for the purpose of preventing or deterring him from taking part in the activities of the trade union, as opposed to the purpose of removing someone from the office of shop steward, who was not an appropriate person to fulfil the role of a shop steward.
Citations:
Times 31-Mar-1999, Gazette 21-Apr-1999, [1999] IRLR 626, [1999] EWCA Civ 1064
Statutes:
Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 146
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Farnsworth Ltd v McCoid EAT 27-Mar-1998
The Applicant had worked as a factory operative and was a duly elected shop steward. There was an agreement between the employers and the Transport and General Workers Union and under that agreement the employers had the right to de-recognise a shop . .
Cited by:
Cited – Buckwell v Ashfield District Council EAT 14-Mar-2002
The appellant had been a housing officer employed by the respondent and was an official of his Union. He attended (while off work through sickness) a meeting of local tenants opposed to the Council’s policies. He was suspended pending a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.80443