Mr N. Toms (Counsel) v Respondent — 2025

The claimant, Jack Murley, was a BBC Radio Cornwall presenter, presenter of the BBC's LGBT Sports Podcast, and a member and shop steward of the NUJ branch at Radio Cornwall. In Part 1 he pursued direct sexual orientation discrimination, harassment related to sexual orientation, and trade union detriment claims arising from the BBC's response to his personal social media posts and the 'Loosest Goose' segment on his Sunday lunchtime programme.

The tribunal set out the BBC Editorial Standards and Social Media Guidance and found that the claimant's posts about the Local Value for All proposals were made on his personal Twitter account. It held that posting in that way was not the activities of an independent trade union and was not communicating on behalf of the NUJ. The BBC was entitled to treat the posts as subject to its impartiality and conduct rules, and the claimant was not shielded simply because he was a union representative.

On the trade union detriment claim, the tribunal found that the disciplinary action, the delay in putting the charges in writing, and the later scheduling issues were explained by the need to appoint a hearing manager, the claimant's wish to have the grievance heard first, and the difficulty in finding an available manager. It found that the respondent was seeking to enforce its standards, not to prevent or deter trade union activity. The tribunal therefore dismissed the TULR(C)A claim.

On the discrimination and harassment claims, the tribunal found that the claimant's removal from on-air duties on 30 June 2023, the framing of the allegations as gross misconduct, the grievance handling, and the disclosure decision of 9 January 2024 were all driven by concerns about the claimant's social media and on-air content, not by sexual orientation. It accepted that the claimant had been the target of homophobic abuse and that Emma Clements had supported him on previous occasions, but it held that none of the challenged acts were because of his sexuality and none had the purpose or effect required for harassment. All Part 1 claims were dismissed.