Mr P Holmes v Kirklees Council 7 March 2022 — 2022

This judgment was the tribunal's decision on Mr P Holmes's application for interim relief. Employment Judge Shepherd recorded that the claimant had brought complaints of detriment for taking part in UNISON activities, unfair dismissal under sections 94 and 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and direct age discrimination, but the application before the tribunal was whether interim relief should be granted in relation to the trade union dismissal complaint under section 152 of TULCRA.

The tribunal stated that the relevant question under section 161 TULCRA was whether it appeared likely that the claimant would succeed in establishing that the reason, or principal reason, for dismissal was related to trade union membership or activities. It applied Taplin v C Shipham Ltd and said the claimant had to show a "pretty good chance of success". The judgment noted the claimant's long service since 1973, his full-time release as UNISON branch secretary since 1998, and his election as National President of UNISON in July 2021.

The tribunal summarised the respondent's evidence that an external investigator's report led to disciplinary proceedings, that two allegations were upheld, and that Colin Parr decided to dismiss the claimant for gross misconduct. It recorded the respondent's case that Mr Parr considered the evidence and genuinely believed misconduct warranting dismissal had been committed, and that the respondent's evidence did not support an inference that the dismissal was motivated by hostility to trade union activity.

On the material before it, the tribunal found there were factual disputes about Mr Parr's motivation and whether he had been manipulated by others, and said those issues would need to be resolved at a full hearing. It was not satisfied that it was pretty likely that the claimant would succeed in showing that the dismissal was because of his trade union membership or activities, so the application for interim relief was refused. The judgment did not determine the merits of the underlying claims and did not record any monetary award.