A round up of the latest HR and Employment Law updates and related stories.  

CLARIFYING DISMISSAL FOR TRADE UNION ACTIVITY

Under section 152(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 employees can not be dismissed for any reasons concerned with lawful trade union activity

Azam v Ofqual UKEAT/0407/14/JOJ relates to a trade union representative, Ms Azam, employed by OFQUAL which regulates academic and vocational qualification examinations and assessments in England. Whilst her employer was “formulating significant changes to its pay and grading arrangements” Ms Azam was provided with a spreadsheet “detailing each of the roles in the organisation together with the old and proposed new grades” by her employer and it was emphasised to her that the information was confidential and there was a “strict embargo” on Ms Azam disclosing it to union members or from “using it for other purposes”.

Despite this Ms Azam disclosed the spreadsheet to all union members sending it in an email which also advised about appealing their new grades. When her employers discovered this Ms Azam was suspended and, following an investigation, was dismissed. The employers did not accept her argument that this was part of her trade union activity (for which she could not be dismissed) and that “she had believed the spreadsheets were only confidential until such time as the letters went out to individual employees regarding the outcome of the process for them”. Ms Azam also claimed that her dismissal was unfair on the basis that her employers had been looking for a reason to dismiss her anyway.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal held the dismissal to be fair acknowledging that ACAS codes relating to trade union activity did allow employers to place on trade union activities “in terms of the disclosure of information received from the employer where that information is confidential” and that Ms Azam understood her actions.

PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS AT WORK – DISMISSAL REASONS

The case of A v West Midlands Police (Harassment) [2015] UKEAT/ 0313/14/2JOJ involved a young police officer and her sergeant and has highlighted issues regarding personal relationships between colleagues.

The officer complained that she had been the subject of “unwelcome attentions” of her sergeant complaining that his actions amounted to “harassment on the grounds of her sex” and physical assault (her evidence was that the sergeant became angry and grabbed her arm).  Evidence was provided that the officer and sergeant had previously been in a mutual “consensual relationship” but that the relationship “soured”.

After a thorough investigation, the employer concluded that there had been “inappropriate behaviour for a police sergeant” and he was given a written warning.  The officer objected saying that she had been “victimised” because her employer had not properly dealt with her allegations of physical assault and sexual abuse.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal found that the employer had behaved properly and taken appropriate action saying (relying on the case of Driskel v Peninsula Business Services Ltd [2000] IRLR 151) that in  a case like this where it is a “contest between the acceptance of his evidence on one hand and A’s on the other” an employer/Tribunal needs to “adopt an holistic approach” and look at the “overall picture taking into account all the facts” and, in this case, it included the previous relationship between the officer and her sergeant.