Mr A v M King AND Locked in a Room (Bristol) Limited — 2023

This was a judgment on the Claimant’s application for interim relief, not a final determination of the underlying unfair dismissal claim. Mr King was dismissed on 2 October 2023, presented his claim on 8 October 2023, and sought interim relief under s.161 TULR(C)A on the basis that the principal reason for dismissal was trade union membership and trade union activities protected by s.152 TULR(C)A. The tribunal noted that the Claimant had less than two years’ service and that, for interim relief, it had to assess whether he had a pretty good chance of success at the full hearing.

The tribunal set out the applicable authorities, including London City Airport Ltd v Chacko, Ryb v Nomura International plc, Taplin v C Shippam Ltd, Dandpat v University of Bath, Ministry of Justice v Sarfraz, Abernethy v Mott Hay and Anderson, Dixon v West Ella Developments, Chant v Aquaboats, and Morris v Metrolink Ratp Dev Ltd. It noted that it was required to make only an expeditious summary assessment on the material available, without resolving disputed facts or hearing oral evidence unless directed.

On the material before it, the tribunal was not satisfied that the Claimant had a pretty good chance of establishing that the principal reason for dismissal was trade union membership or activities. It identified a significant dispute about the Respondent’s conclusion that the Claimant had been dishonest, and said that the decision-maker, Ms Tinsley, would say that none of the allegations related to union activity and that she found no evidence that union membership or role was relevant to the disciplinary outcome. The tribunal also considered the factual dispute over whether the Claimant was undertaking union activity at an appropriate time on 17 August 2023, noting that there is no statutory right to be accompanied by a trade union representative at an investigatory meeting.

The tribunal further held that there were factual disputes about whether the Claimant’s conduct on 17 August 2023 fell outside the scope of protected union activity, and about the nature of the interview on 12 September 2023. It concluded that, given the disputes of fact and the burden on the Claimant, it could not say that he had pretty good chances of success. The application for interim relief was therefore dismissed, and no remedy was awarded.