In person For the v Mr N Hartley - Solicitor — 2020

The claimant had been on full-time paid release for trade union duties for many years under a 2003 agreement relating to Harrow Branch. After he lost his Area Representative office on 5 January 2018, a dispute arose about whether he remained entitled to continue on full-time paid release as Branch Chair. The tribunal found that the respondent's response from 6 January 2018 onwards, including asking him to return to operational duties and questioning the continuing force of the 2003 agreement, was driven by operational considerations and not by the claimant's trade union activities.

The tribunal also rejected the trade union detriment case in relation to sick pay, leave pay, and later overpayment recovery. It found that the August 2018 reduction from full pay to half pay followed the national sick pay procedure after six months' full pay, that the pay and leave issues were ordinary office or IT errors, and that the later recovery of overpayments was carried out under normal procedure. The tribunal accepted that the respondent's initial January 2018 decision to terminate the 2003 agreement without a formal process was wrong, but it found that this did not show a prohibited purpose. It also found that once the agreement was taken into the Industrial Relations Framework, the respondent proceeded through that process, and arrears were later paid for the period up to 10 December 2019. The unlawful deductions claims did not proceed because the claimant had already been paid the net sums he said were due before the hearing.

On disability discrimination, the claimant's disability was conceded, but the tribunal rejected direct discrimination because he did not show that a non-disabled comparator would have been treated differently. It rejected indirect discrimination because there was no evidence that the overpayment recovery policy disadvantaged disabled workers as a group, and it found the policy to be proportionate to the legitimate aim of consistent salary management. The victimisation claim also failed because the tribunal accepted that the Recovery Team had no knowledge of the protected act or the tribunal claim when it carried out the recovery process. All claims before the tribunal were dismissed.