EAT UNLAWFUL DEDUCTION FROM WAGES – Industrial action
Firefighter objects to being asked to ‘act up’ as watch manager but continues to do so under protest – Eventually refuses to do so in the context of official industrial action being taken by colleagues, where refusal to act up forms part of the action called by the Union; but continues to refuse on an individual basis following the conclusion of the action – Employer makes deductions in response to that refusal – Employee claims for unlawful deductions under Part II of Employment Rights Act 1996 – Tribunal holds that claim barred by section 14 (5) because the deduction was made on account of his having taken part in industrial action, being a continuation of the earlier official action
HELD, allowing the appeal, that on the Tribunal’s findings of fact the employee’s refusal to act up following the conclusion of the official action could not be regarded as a mere continuation of that action but constituted simply an individual refusal to undertake a task which he believed not to be required of him by the contract, and that accordingly the Claimant could not be regarded as ‘taking part in industrial action’ since (a) he was not taking action with a view to furthering any ulterior object and (b) he was acting on his own and not in concert with any other workers – Bowater Containers Ltd v Blake (EAT/552/81) followed; Lewis and Britton v E Mason and Sons [1994] IRLR 4 not followed.
Judges:
Underhill P J
Citations:
[2013] UKEAT 0146 – 12 – 0803
Links:
Statutes:
Employment Rights Act 1996 1495)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Bowater Containers Ltd v Blake EAT 1981
EAT The employee who had an unresolved bonus query refused to work in a section of the employer’s plant different from where he normally worked until the query was sorted out. He was then dismissed. The employer . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.471565
