Mr D Bheemah, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2017

The claimant, a BASSA member, brought a complaint under s.64 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 alleging that she had been unjustifiably disciplined after she sought disclosure of BASSA branch accounting records under s.30. The tribunal found that her request for the accounts, and her pursuit of the matter before the Certification Officer, fell within s.65(2)(c) and (j). It also found that branch officials had made determinations in response to the resulting criticism and publicity, and that those determinations took the form of identifying the claimant by name, blaming her for the consequences of the litigation, and treating her as responsible for the financial scrutiny of the union.

On the evidence of the branch emails, the Twitter publication, and the social media posts, the tribunal held that the claimant was subjected to a detriment within s.64(2)(f). It found that the March and early April 2017 communications were authorised by branch officers, targeted the claimant specifically, and went beyond setting the record straight. The tribunal also held that Ms Marie-Louise Elliott's posts were communications made by a union official acting in that capacity, and that the 4 March 2017 Twitter post linked the earlier branch communication to the wider membership. The respondent's s.65(5) defence failed because the tribunal was not satisfied that a member in similar circumstances would have been disciplined irrespective of the claimant's protected conduct.

The tribunal rejected the claim that the claimant had been denied access to the BASSA/Unite website. It accepted the evidence that the login system was automated, that the claimant had entered incorrect passwords, and that there was no evidence of a union decision to block access. It also dismissed the complaint about the unofficial BASSA XXXX Facebook page as out of time, finding that the operative date was 22 July 2016 and that no continuing act provision applied. By contrast, it found that the 3 April 2017 amendment to the branch constitution, together with the proposed letter threatening disciplinary or civil action, was directed at the claimant shortly before her 7 April 2017 inspection of the records and amounted to unjustifiable discipline. The judgment declared the complaint well-founded and left further remedy issues to a later hearing.