Miss R Owusu-Agyei (Counsel) For the v Mr R. Powell — 2020

The tribunal accepted that Mr Snarey was designated by Magnox to carry out health and safety activities and was also a representative of workers on health and safety matters. It then considered six alleged detriments said to have arisen between March and October 2018. The first two allegations, both involving Tony Smith, were not proved: the tribunal preferred Mr Smith's account of the March 2018 conversation about remaining on the Dragon project and of the 8 September 2018 shopfloor discussion, and found no proved threat that Mr Snarey's employment was at risk unless he reduced union activity.

The tribunal found that the third and fourth allegations did amount to detriments because restricting Mr Snarey's working area, and requiring him to stay in the canteen or office while matters were investigated, put him at a disadvantage. However, it found that those restrictions were imposed because Mr Snarey had raised a complaint about Mr Smith and an investigation was being carried out, not because he was carrying out trade union or health and safety duties. The tribunal also noted that the restriction period was affected by Mr Snarey's lapsed medical clearance/EPD and by the time taken to complete the investigation.

The fifth allegation concerned the investigation report of 1 October 2018, which recorded comments describing Mr Snarey as a troublemaker, awkward, work shy, untrustworthy, and with mental health issues, and included a management suggestion about moving him to a smaller team. The tribunal accepted that these comments would place him at a disadvantage, but found they arose from the fact-finding process triggered by his complaint about Mr Smith, and not from anti-union or anti-health-and-safety motive. The sixth allegation, referral to Occupational Health, was not found to be a detriment at all; in any event, the tribunal found it was a management response to the medical and mental wellbeing concerns recorded during the investigation and Mr Snarey's recent sickness absence. The complaints under both section 44 ERA 1996 and section 146 TULR(C)A 1992 were therefore dismissed.