Case 6016223/2024 · Employment Tribunal

Mr M O’Shea v London and North Eastern Railway Limited — 2025

Case reference: 6016223/2024
Decision date: 4 November 2025
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Miller
Venue: Leeds
Panel members: Ms J Hiser, Ms G Fleming

Indexed: 17 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr M O’Shea

Respondent

London and North Eastern Railway Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal found that the claimant's complaint under section 168 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 was well founded. It declared that the respondent failed to permit the claimant to take time off during working hours for trade union duties on 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 July 2024 and 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 August 2024.

The tribunal dismissed the complaint under section 169 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. It also found that the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages in respect of pay for the weeks commencing 14 July 2024 and 11 August 2024, and ordered payment of £3027.50 subject to deductions for tax, national insurance or pension contributions.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

This case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Trade union	The section 168 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 complaint succeeded, but the tribunal made no separate award of compensation under section 168.	Upheld	—	—
Trade union	The complaint under section 169 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 was dismissed.	Dismissed	—	—
Unlawful deduction from wages	Recorded from the judgment.	Upheld	—	£3,028

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £3,028; across all upheld claims

Legal tests applied

2 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.

Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.

How we got this data

Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.

Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.