Mr J Evans v Severn Trent Water Limited — 2020

This was a preliminary hearing on 21 January 2020 before Employment Judge P Britton sitting alone. The tribunal considered the respondent’s application to strike out the claimant’s remaining complaint that he had been restricted or prevented from undertaking trade union activities under section 146 of TULCRA 1992. The judge said the claim had to be assessed at its highest and referred to the caution against striking out cases of this type except in an exceptional case, citing Anyanwu and anor v South Bank Students Union 2001 ICR 391, HL.

On the facts as set out in the reasons, the claimant was a long-serving Severn Trent employee and a recognised GMB official involved in the CFTU and company forum structure. The dispute arose from internal trade union disagreements in late February and early March 2019, including the claimant’s opposition to decisions taken by other union officials. The judge found that the claimant was voted off the CFTU at a meeting he did not attend, but that the employer was not shown to have been involved in that union decision. The judge rejected the claimant’s case that Nicole Westcott or Severn Trent were part of a conspiracy to remove him, saying there was no evidence to support that inference.

The only adverse treatment relied on in substance was the cancellation of the claimant’s invitation to the company forum meeting on 12 March 2019. The tribunal accepted that this was because, in the context of the breakdown in relations within the trade union side and the claimant’s failure to give reassurance, Westcott was concerned the dispute would spill into the meeting and disrupt the agenda. The judge found that the claimant was not excluded because he was a trade union official, but because of the internal union fallout and the lack of communication with Westcott. The judge also noted that the treatment was of short duration and that the claimant was later reinstated to the CFTU with no loss of responsibilities.

The tribunal concluded that there was no evidence that the claimant had been prevented from carrying out his trade union activities beyond the 12 March meeting. It therefore held that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success and struck it out in its entirety. No remedy was awarded.