Trade union activities

Case 2: The facts

Mr Yewdall was his employer’s fire safety officer, estate liaison officer and local health and safety officer. Claiming that he was harassed and bullied because of the way he carried out his activities, he raised a grievance which was investigated but not upheld.

Yewdall then brought a tribunal claim of discrimination, arguing that he had suffered a detriment on grounds of trade union activities. He cited occasions over the previous three years on which his employer had objected to his talking to other people, including the union, or had forbidden him from doing so.

The ruling

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that most of Yewdall’s complaints were out of time; he had failed to establish a continuing act of discrimination, because the acts he complained of were not of the same kind.

It also held that, in order to prove a detriment on trade union grounds, a claimant must first of all establish a prima facie case (i.e. demonstrate that the employer’s actions would amount to a detriment on grounds of trade union activities in the absence of any other explanation), just as s/he would have to do in a claim of sex or race discrimination.

The EAT found the essence of Yewdall’s case to be that his employer objected to his giving information to the union; this, it said, did not amount to taking part in union activities. His claim therefore fell at the first hurdle and was dismissed.

Yewdall v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions UKEAT/0071/05