Mr J Hogg v Northumbrian Water Group Limited — 2019

Mr Hogg was a Unite health and safety representative at Northumbrian Water. He had been given paid release for earlier union and health and safety training, including New Reps Induction and the Unite Health and Safety Reps Certificate Stage 2, before applying for paid release to attend a 36-week TUC Diploma in health and safety. The respondent refused the request on 3 August 2018 and again on 30 November 2018. The Tribunal admitted evidence about the so-called Silver Incident, but found that the refusal letters did not rely on it and that the operative reason for refusal was the claimant's lack of experience, together with subsidiary concerns about the amount of time already taken off and the respondent's planned future training arrangements.

The TULCRA claim failed because the Tribunal held that the TUC Diploma was not training in aspects of industrial relations relevant to the duties relied on under section 168(1). It accepted that the course concerned health and safety law, trade union organisation and related workplace problems, but found no sufficient nexus between that material and negotiations or functions connected with collective bargaining matters under section 178(2)(a). On that basis, section 168 was not engaged and the complaint under section 168(4) was dismissed.

The Tribunal accepted that the TUC Diploma was training in aspects of the claimant's functions as a safety representative for the purposes of regulation 4(2) of the 1977 Regulations. It then applied the Duthie and Walker approach, asking first whether the training was reasonable in all the circumstances. It found that it was not reasonable for the claimant to embark on the diploma at that stage because he had already received the basic training required for the role, had only limited experience when he reapplied, and there was no evidence of any change in circumstances or need for further skills to perform his duties on the Health & Safety Forum. Because reasonableness was not satisfied, the question of necessity did not arise and the regulation 11 claim was also dismissed. No remedy was awarded.