Inducements to Forego Participation in Trade Union Activities – ET Ruling

Workers have a right not to have offers made to them which have the sole or main purpose of inducing them not to participate in trade union activities. An outsourcing company found that out to its cost after making a trade union activist a tempting offer of a transfer to a new workplace at a…

Mar 10, 2022

The man worked at government-owned premises where the company was contracted to provide cleaning services. He had an active and high-profile role in an independent trade union and had in the past received media attention due to his involvement in promoting strike action. The company vehemently opposed the union’s attempts to achieve recognition as an authorised representative of employees working on the site.

With an employee ballot on the recognition issue looming, the company offered to transfer the man to a new site where he would be better paid. He launched Employment Tribunal (ET) proceedings on the basis that the offer was made for the purpose of inducing him not to take part in trade union activities, contrary to Section 145A(1)(b) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.

The company asserted that the sole purpose of the offer was to swiftly find suitable cleaners to work at the new site. It contended that the man was chosen because he had appropriate security clearance and had previously expressed a desire to move to a different location where he would be better remunerated.

In upholding his complaint, however, the ET found on the evidence that the sole or main purpose of the offer was to induce him not to vote in the finely balanced recognition ballot, not to attend pre-ballot meetings and to refrain from seeking to persuade colleagues to vote in favour of recognition.

The ET noted that the timing of the offer coincided very precisely with critical events in the recognition process. A similar offer had been made to another worker who was also vocal in his support for the union. The offer had not been advertised internally as would normally have been the case. The ET gave directions for a further hearing at which remedy issues would be determined.

University Manager Succeeds in Unfair Dismissal/Disability Discrimination Claims

Redundancy processes that lack transparency or fail to pay particular regard to the position of disabled employees are highly likely to result in costly Employment Tribunal (ET) proceedings. That was certainly so in the case of a university faculty manager who lost her job in the midst of a restructuring exercise. The woman suffered from depression and general anxiety disorder and was agreed to be disabled. With a view to cutting costs and achieving greater efficiency, the university decided to…

Workplace Horseplay and Employers’ Responsibilities – Guideline Ruling

Irresponsible horseplay in the workplace can cause serious injury, but to what extent should employers be held indirectly – or vicariously – liable for such behaviour? The Court of Appeal considered that burning issue in a guideline case. A fitter was bending down to pick up a length of steel when a workmate placed two pellet targets on a bench close to his right ear. The workmate struck the targets with a hammer, causing a loud explosion. As a result, the fitter suffered noise-induced hearing…

Peculiar Scoring System Rendered Genuine Redundancy Exercise Unfair

A redundancy exercise may be based on reasonable criteria yet flaws in the scoring system used to assess employees’ performance may still render a dismissal unfair. In a case on point, an Employment Tribunal (ET) identified a number of errors and peculiarities in a scoring procedure that led to an agency worker wrongly losing his job. Faced with a business downturn arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, the employer selected a group of eight workers on the basis of their length of service, from…