Cases2309588/2024

Claimant v Brighton & Hove City Council

17 January 2025Before Employment Judge T PerryLondon South

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Automatic Unfair Dismissalnot determined

This was an application for interim relief under s.163 TULR(C)A 1992, alleging dismissal for trade union membership or activities under s.152. The tribunal rejected the application, finding it was not 'likely' (a high bar meaning a pretty good chance of success) that a full tribunal would find the principal reason for dismissal was trade union activities. The tribunal found no evidence that the dismissing officer, Mr Hook, was motivated by anti-union sentiment, and concluded that the multiple allegations of misconduct relied upon for dismissal (including threatening staff, alleging he would 'break' staff members, shouting at counsellors) were likely to be found genuinely separable from legitimate trade union activities, falling outside the protection of s.152. The full merits claim remains to be determined.

Facts

The claimant was employed by Brighton & Hove City Council as a full-time GMB union convenor. He was dismissed following multiple allegations of misconduct including threatening staff members, alleging he would 'break' staff, shouting at counsellors, and other behaviours. The claimant applied for interim relief, arguing his dismissal was solely or principally for his trade union membership or activities. The respondent maintained the dismissal was for the alleged misconduct, which was genuinely separable from legitimate trade union activities.

Decision

Employment Judge Perry rejected the claimant's application for interim relief. The judge found it was not 'likely' (the high statutory test) that a full tribunal would conclude the principal reason for dismissal was trade union activities. There was no evidence that the dismissing officer was motivated by anti-union sentiment, and the multiple serious allegations of misconduct (threatening staff, aggressive behaviour towards councillors) were likely to be found genuinely separable from protected trade union activities under the Lyon/Burgess test.

Practical note

Interim relief applications for automatic unfair dismissal on trade union grounds face a very high bar: misconduct allegations that are wholly unreasonable, malicious or extraneous to legitimate union activities can be genuinely separable and fall outside s.152 protection, especially where multiple serious allegations exist and there is no evidence of anti-union animus by the decision-maker.

Legal authorities cited

Lyon and anor v St James Press Ltd 1976 ICR 413Morris v Metrolink RATP Dev Ltd 2019 ICR 90Mihaj v Sodexho Ltd 2014 ICR D25Bass Taverns Ltd v Burgess 1995 IRLR 596Taplin v C Shippam Ltd [1978] ICR 1068Ministry of Justice v Sarfraz [2011] IRLR 562Dandpat v University of Bath UKEAT/0408/09

Statutes

Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 s.152Employment Rights Act 1996 Part XTrade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 s.161Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 s.163

Case details

Case number
2309588/2024
Decision date
17 January 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
public sector
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
GMB convenor

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister