Mrs T Coxhill v Unite the Union — 2019

The claimant, a Unite lay official and branch secretary at Heathrow branch 562, challenged disciplinary sanctions imposed after branch funds were used to support High Court proceedings brought by two members opposing the creation of a new Terminal 3 branch. The tribunal found that both the original disciplinary decision and the appeal decision were determinations within section 64, and that the claim about the original decision was presented within a reasonable further period because delay was attributable in part to a reasonable appeal attempt.

The tribunal found that the claimant did not know at the 8 September 2016 branch meeting that the new Terminal 3 branch had already been established, and that she honestly believed the proposed breakaway was contrary to union rules or legal requirements. It therefore rejected the respondent's argument that she acted in bad faith, although it found the assertion about breach of rules or law was in fact incorrect.

The tribunal held that the funding and governance steps were capable of falling within the protected conduct provisions in section 65, but that section 65(5) applied. It found there had been a serious failure of governance and spending of branch money outside the scope permitted by the union's rules, and was satisfied that comparable use of union funds would have led to at least the same disciplinary sanctions even if not connected with legal action against the union. The complaint was therefore not well-founded.