Case 2204469/2022 · Employment Tribunal
All four claimants in person For the v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 2204469/2022
- Decision date
- 15 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Baty Appearances
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
1 namedClaimant
All four claimants in person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningFour claimants, all members of the respondent RMT, complained under section 174 TULCRA after their expulsion from the union with effect from 8 April 2022. Their claim form said they had been written to on 12 January 2022, 26 January 2022 and 2 February 2022 to desist from protesting outside Unity House, that they had no hearing or chance to answer charges, and that the appeal process would not be fair. The tribunal held that section 174 gives only a narrow right not to be excluded or expelled, and that allegations about general unfairness, lack of procedure, unequal treatment or a deficient appeal do not by themselves bring a complaint within the section.
The claimants applied to amend their claims to add further matters, including references to emails, branch resolutions, union money, Union Learning Funds, whistleblowing and section 174(4H). Applying Selkent and Galilee, the tribunal refused the amendments. It held that the relevant date for limitation was the hearing date of 14 November 2022, so the proposed amendments were out of time, and that it had been reasonably practicable to raise any such matters earlier, including because the claimants knew the background and had received the appeal outcome on 15 July 2022.
Having refused amendment, the tribunal considered the original claims on strikeout. It held that the pleaded case did not identify conduct protected by section 174, so the claims were not justiciable and had no reasonable prospect of success. It also found that the contemporaneous documents showed the respondent acted after the GMB and NUJ registered a dispute, issued repeated instructions to stop protesting outside Unity House, suspended the claimants, and then expelled them only after three warnings had been ignored. The tribunal said this was an exceptional case where the claimants' asserted case was inconsistent with the undisputed documentation, and it struck out all four claims. It was therefore unnecessary to consider deposit orders.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | The four claimants' complaints under section 174 TULCRA were struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success; the tribunal held the pleaded case did not engage the limited statutory grounds in section 174. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Selkent balancing exercise
- Galilee amendment time point
- reasonably practicable test under section 175 TULCRA
- rule 37(1)(a) no reasonable prospect of success
- Eszias exceptional-case approach
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.