Mr S Buparai v Secretary of State for Justice FINAL HEARING Heard at London South: by CVP — 2024

Mr Buparai was the Branch Chair of the Prison Officers' Association at HMP Belmarsh. On 6 July 2023 he sought time off for a Branch Quarterly Meeting on 27 July 2023. Mr Golder did not immediately grant the request, sought advice from Employee Relations, and then said the meeting room could be used but the meeting should take place during the unpaid lunch break. The tribunal heard evidence from Mr Buparai, Mr Golder and Mr F Stuart, and said it did not accept the claimant's evidence on any material point.

The tribunal held that the proposed meeting was a trade union activity rather than a trade union duty for the purposes of s.168 TULRCA. It found that the agenda items relied on by the claimant, including staffing, health and safety, annual fitness tests, the judicial review, regime, the 2023 PSPRB pay award, disciplinary matters, ill health and regrading, and forced detached duty, were not sufficiently proximate to collective bargaining with HMPPS on matters within s.178(2) in respect of which the POA was recognised. The tribunal noted that pay was dealt with through the PSPRB rather than collective bargaining with HMPPS, that some issues were local grievances or operational matters, and that there was no documentary evidence of active negotiations or preparatory bargaining at the relevant time.

The tribunal found that the meeting was an internal union matter intended to gather members' views and feed them back to the NEC, which it said was consistent with trade union activity under the Acas Code rather than a duty under s.168. It therefore dismissed the s.168 complaint. By contrast, the respondent accepted that it had not permitted unpaid time off during working hours for the proposed meeting, so the tribunal made a declaration that the s.170 complaint was well founded.

On remedy, the tribunal declined to award compensation. It said the refusal was a one-off error arising from a genuine misunderstanding of the legislation, that the claimant had not suffered financial loss, that injury to feelings was not available for this type of refusal, and that a declaration was a sufficient remedy.