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 discilplinary process on condition that he not meet other employees, but was alleged to have continued to lobby other staff members about housing. The Council said that his involvement in the campaign was not part of his activities as a Union official. He appealed against rejection of his sebtion 146 claim.
Held: The appeal failed: ‘if what the Respondents have done serves to prevent Mr Buckwell from carrying out trade union activities, then it must consider the reason, that is, the purpose with which it did that act so as to determine whether that purpose was prohibited by section 146.’ and ‘we are quite satisfied that the use of the ‘but for’ test did not reflect an error of law.’
Judges:
Holland J
Citations:
[2002] UKEAT 51 – 01 – 1403
Links:
Statutes:
Trade Union and Labour Relations Consolidation Act 1992 146(1)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – F W Farnsworth Limited v McCoid CA 31-Mar-1999
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 . .
Cited – Associated Newspapers Ltd v Wilson; Associated British Ports v Palmer HL 31-Mar-1995
The Daily Mail had recognised the Union to which their journalists belonged. They wanted to end this arrangement, and offered a better rate of pay to non-members. The union said this was an unlawful action taken because of union membership. Similar . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.202590