Mr R O’Keeffe (Union Representative) For the v Respondent — 2019

The tribunal found that the Claimant attended an all-members BECTU meeting on 15 April 2017 after strike action, and that the meeting discussed further strike days, community support, and the possibility of so-called cyber-picketing. It found that the Claimant then sent an email on 18 April from the branch email address summarising what had been agreed and saying the branch would start pushing cyber-pickets, meaning supporters would block-book seats and keep them in the online basket so they could not be sold. The tribunal accepted that BECTU later said the activity was not authorised and potentially unlawful, but held that the email remained part of trade union activity for the purposes of s152(1)(b) TULRCA.

On dismissal, the tribunal found that Mr O'Connor dismissed the Claimant because he regarded the email and the underlying cyber-picketing discussion as highly damaging to the business, because she had not reported the email or the Hackney activity, because he regarded her answers as lacking openness and honesty, and because he lost trust and confidence in her. The tribunal held that these reasons were all inextricably linked to her participation in trade union activities at an appropriate time, including her refusal to disclose the names of colleagues who had been present at the meeting. It concluded that the dismissal was automatically unfair under s152(1)(b) TULRCA.

The detriment claim failed. The tribunal held that the suspension on 10 May 2017 was a response to the Claimant's admission that she had sent the email and to the need to progress disciplinary proceedings, rather than a step taken for the sole or main purpose of deterring or penalising trade union membership or activity. The tribunal also said that, had it been wrong on s152, it would have found the dismissal unfair under s98 ERA 1996 in any event. Remedy was not determined in this decision and the case was to be listed for a remedy hearing.