Claimant v HM Revenue & Customs

Claimant alleged detriment for trade union activities (sending 12 May 2023 message) contrary to section 146 TULR(C)A. Tribunal found claimant was taking part in trade union activities but not at an 'appropriate time' as he did not have consent from his manager to use working hours for this purpose and it was not outside working hours. Even if at appropriate time, the respondent's purpose was not to penalise him for union activities but for the manner and timing (breach of policies on use of HMRC systems), applying the separability principle from Martin v Devonshire's Solicitors.

Claimant alleged dismissal under section 152(1)(b) TULR(C)A for taking part in trade union activities. Tribunal found the activities were not at an 'appropriate time' (working hours without consent). Even if they were, the principal reason for dismissal was not the trade union activities themselves but the way they were conducted (use of HMRC systems in breach of policies, during working hours without consent), a genuinely separable feature applying Lyon v St James Press and Martin principles.

Respondent established potentially fair reason of conduct. Tribunal found respondent had reasonable grounds to believe claimant used MS Teams without legitimate business need to monitor staff and to promote industrial action via 12 May email. Investigation by Ms Cameron was reasonable and comprehensive. Dismissal was within band of reasonable responses: indicative penalty was gross misconduct, Miss Isaacs considered alternatives (final written warning) but reasonably concluded dismissal appropriate given deliberate breach of known policies, lack of remorse, and damage to employment relationship. Procedure was fair: claimant had detailed investigation report, adequate time to prepare, trade union representation, full participation, detailed reasons, effective right of appeal. Specific allegations of unfairness (inconsistency, fabricated evidence, senior management pressure) were rejected.