EAT VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION – Detriment
The Claimant was branch secretary of UNISON. Her post and six others in Library Services were deleted. Two new team leader posts were created. She had a good chance of being appointed to one. In the course of the redundancy exercise she was critical of management. Both new posts were then deleted. One was reinstated but not the other to which the Claimant had a good chance of being appointed. The Claimant was dismissed as redundant. The Employment Tribunal did not err in their approach to the claim that the Claimant had been subjected to a detriment, the withdrawal of the team leader post, of penalising her for taking part in trade union activities. However the Employment Tribunal erred in their approach in concluding that the Claimant had been ‘automatically’ unfairly dismissed within the meaning of TULR(C)A section 152 because she had taken part in trade union activities. The Employment Tribunal erred in reasoning that because they did not accept the Respondent’s reason for dismissal, redundancy, the claim under TULR(C)A section 152 was made out. Whilst the ET referred to Kuzel v Roche Products Ltd [2008] IRLR 530 they did not apply the approach explained in paragraph 59. The Employment Tribunal should have decided that the reason for the dismissal was rather than accepting that it was the reason advanced by the Claimant once they did not accept that put forward by the Respondent. Appeal against finding of unfair dismissal allowed. Unfair dismissal claim remitted for rehearing.
Slade DBE J
[2015] UKEAT 0408 – 14 – 2112
Bailii
England and Wales
Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.565099
