Mr J Edwards v Unite the Union and 1 other — 2026

Mr Edwards brought three combined claims alleging victimisation under section 27 of the Equality Act 2010 and unjustifiable discipline under sections 64 and 65 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The 17 alleged detriments concerned refusals of legal assistance, the handling of complaints about Unite's legal department and Slater and Gordon Solicitors, membership benefits and subscriptions, and responses or non-responses by union officers. The Tribunal dismissed both sets of complaints in their entirety. It recorded that Mr Edwards had not brought a disability discrimination or reasonable-adjustments claim.

The respondents conceded that the listed acts were protected subject to the statutory bad-faith exceptions. Applying the approach in GMB Union v Fenton and Saad v Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust, the Tribunal found that the allegations relied on from 22 January 2021 were untrue or misconceived and made in bad faith. It found that Mr Edwards did not honestly believe the central allegation that Mr Gillam had accused him of breaching his retainer with Slater and Gordon Solicitors. Mr Edwards accepted in cross-examination that Mr Gillam had instead consistently said that he had terminated the retainer. The correspondence from 22 January 2021 was therefore not protected for either claim; the Tribunal found in the alternative that bad faith arose by 8 February 2021 or, at the latest, 5 November 2021.

The Tribunal also decided every alleged detriment in the alternative. It found that Unite continued to refuse legal assistance for the same reasons considered in the earlier Slater Judgment: Mr Edwards had terminated the retainer with the panel solicitors and had consistently failed to cooperate when assistance was provided. Legal assistance was discretionary. The Tribunal rejected the allegations that counsel's advice was negligent, that Slater and Gordon Solicitors or Unite officials acted improperly in the matters relied on, that Mr Gillam deliberately withheld documents, or that he misled the earlier Tribunal. The refusal decisions were not legal detriments and, in any event, were not caused by protected acts or conduct within section 65(2)(c) of the 1992 Act.

Mr Granfield treated the June 2020 complaint under the Legal Services Review Procedure because it concerned the refusal of legal assistance, which the Tribunal found was the applicable procedure. Sickness benefit was an in-work benefit for which Mr Edwards did not qualify, while his subscription rate was reduced from the date Unite was notified of his changed status in line with its policy. The Tribunal found that these matters were not legal detriments and were unrelated to any protected act or qualifying trade-union conduct.

Mr Beckett reviewed the complaints referred to him and agreed with Mr Gillam's decision. The Tribunal found that his earlier non-responses arose from his role, his focus on collective issues during the Covid period and the volume of correspondence he received, rather than from any protected act. Later referrals and non-responses by Mr Stiles, Mr Hughes and other officers arose because the issues had already been decided, fell outside their roles or were sent to the legal department. The Tribunal found that none amounted to a legal detriment; it also made alternative findings that the reasons were unconnected to the protected acts or conduct covered by section 65(2)(c).