Deterring union membership

Employers can take action against union representatives if they can show that their purpose was not to deter union membership.

The facts

Mr Smyth-Britt worked for the security firm Chubb and was also a T&G branch secretary. Due to a complaint about his union organising activities made by a company with which Chubb had a contract, he was moved to an alternative post. Smyth-Britt claimed that Chubb had taken the action on the grounds of his union activities. The company contended that they had taken the action to keep the contract and that, while the action taken was detrimental to Smyth-Britt, it was not outlawed.

The ruling

The EAT held that the action taken against Smyth-Britt was for the purpose of maintaining the contract and not for the purpose of deterring him or preventing him by penalising him on grounds related to union activities. The EAT held that section 146 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 guarantees protection only where the "purpose" of the employer was to deter union membership. Since the tribunal had expressly found that this was not their purpose, it was not covered by section 146. The EAT also held that a reading of section 146 was that it only covered the employer's main or principal purpose. It accepted that its ruling meant the law at present gives trade unionists a very narrow range of protection.

Smyth-Britt v Chubb Security Personnel EAT/0620/03