Ms Naomi Ling, of counsel For the v Respondent — 2023

Mr P Carberry was a Leighton Buzzard firefighter and FBU official who asked for paid trade union leave to attend the employment tribunal hearing of a fellow employee, Mr Stuart Young, on 23 and 24 November 2021. The respondent initially approved the request, but after HR and legal advice it limited paid leave to the day on which Mr Carberry was required to give evidence and treated the second day as annual leave. The tribunal found that the claim was brought in time and heard evidence from Mr Carberry and the respondent's Employee Relations Manager, Ms Rachel Barker.

The tribunal held that the request fell within section 168 of TULR(C)A 1992 and the respondent's own FBU time-off policy at page 66. It accepted that attendance at an employment tribunal hearing could involve more than giving oral evidence, including giving instructions on evidence and submissions, observing the hearing for wider union purposes, and providing assistance relevant to industrial relations. The tribunal also accepted that the issue in Mr Young's case, including the Grey Book demotion point, had wider implications for the union and that Mr Carberry would likely have been able to give useful evidence about the scope of the relevant roles.

Applying the range of reasonable responses of a reasonable employer, the tribunal concluded that it was outside that range for the respondent to limit paid leave to the evidence day only. It placed weight on the respondent's own policy wording, the ACAS Code examples, the fact that the request had initially been granted, and the evidence that the station could accommodate Mr Carberry's absence on the relevant days without affecting the minimum crew requirement. The tribunal therefore found that the claimant should have been given paid leave to attend the hearing on 23 and 24 November 2021.

On remedy, the tribunal rejected an award for injury to feelings but accepted that compensation could include a sum to mark the wrong done. It awarded £123 for the loss of a day's holiday and £2,000 as reparation for the wrong done, for a total of £2,123. The tribunal cited Skiggs v South West Trains Ltd in its remedy analysis and recorded that the claimant felt inhibited about representing employees as a result of the limitation on paid time off.