Mr Christian Octoo of OH Parsons Solicitors For the v Ms Claire Nicolaou – Non- Practising Solicitor — 2023

The claimant was a long-serving Metroline bus driver and Unite health and safety representative. The dispute arose after he was told on 5 November 2021 to attend a Mobile Eye demonstration at Holloway garage on 10 November 2021. The tribunal accepted that the usual process for such attendance involved an Outlook invitation and a DAS-Web stand-down, but on this occasion the arrangements were not properly confirmed and he remained allocated to drive. The respondent accepted that a mistake had been made, but said he should have attended the meeting anyway. The claimant did not attend, and on 13 December 2021 he received a written warning for his attitude and demeanour. His appeal and grievance were not upheld, and the warning was confirmed on 9 February 2022.

On the section 146 TULRA 1992 claim, the tribunal found that the written warning was a detriment. It accepted that the warning had a chilling effect on the claimant and that the matter arose in connection with his union role. However, it was not satisfied that the sole or main purpose of the detriment was to prevent or deter him from taking part in the activities of an independent trade union at an appropriate time. The tribunal found that the respondent was frustrated that there was no health and safety representative at the demonstration and sought to attribute the failure to attend to the claimant, but the evidence did not establish the necessary statutory purpose. The section 146 claim was therefore dismissed.

The claimant also brought an unlawful deduction from wages claim for £49.97. That claim concerned time lost when the disciplinary hearing fixed for 1 December 2021 had to be postponed because his union representative was unavailable. The tribunal accepted that the claimant had not been paid for the period in question, but found that he knew the hearing was likely to be postponed, did not telephone to cancel it, and did not complete his shift. It held that he was not entitled to remuneration in those circumstances, so the wages claim was also dismissed.