Case Number: 2202562/02

 

SE

 

THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

 

BETWEEN

 

Applicant                                                                                                                Respondent

Mr David Beaumont                AND                                                                                                  Amicus MSF

DECISION OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL

HELD AT:       London Central             ON:  14 October 2002

 

CHAIRMAN:     Mr G P Sigsworth       MEMBERS: Mrs D Harlow

                                              Mrs AD Hills

Appearances

For Applicant:    In person

For Respondent:  Mr D Brown - Counsel

DECISION

The unanimous decision of the Tribunal is that:

(i)        By consent it is declared that the Applicant was unjustifiably disciplined

      by the Respondent when he was expelled from the union, contrary to

      section 64 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act

      1992.

(ii)      The Respondent is ordered to pay costs to the Applicant in the sum of

      £1,381.40.

EXTENDED REASONS

 

1    The Applicant presented an Originating Application to the Tribunal on 22 May

2002 claiming that he had been unjustifiably disciplined by his union, namely that he

had been expelled from the union: By its Notice of Appearance dated 17 June 2002,

the Respondent admitted the expulsion of the Applicant, but sought to justify the

discipline on the basis of the Applicant's conduct. The disciplinary panel of the union

had concluded that the Applicant had acted in breach of union rules in respect of

complaints he allegedly made about members of the union. There was no reference in

the notice of appearance to any ongoing disciplinary process, although it is apparent

that the Applicant appealed the decision to expel him and sometime later, on 14

 

 

1

 

 

 

Case Number: 2202562/02

 

September 2002, the appeals committee allowed the Applicant's appeal, and reversed

the original decision and re-admitted the Applicant into membership.

2      A directions hearing was held on 22 August 2002, after an unsuccessful attempt

by the Respondent to postpone it. Directions were given, including a direction that

there would be disclosure of relevant documents by 23 September, that the

Respondent should prepare an agreed bundle by 30 September and that there should

be exchange of witness statements by 7 October.  The full merits hearing was fixed for

four days from 14 to 17 October. These directions were not complied with by the

Respondent. Instead, by letter of 24 September, the Respondent requested a

preliminary hearing on whether the Applicant's claim should continue, and also that

there should be revised directions. The basis of the Respondent's argument was that

the Applicant had now been re-instated in accordance with his contract with the

Respondent after the disciplinary process had been completed, so that in effect no

disciplinary action had been taken against him. The Application was refused on 7

October, the Chairman stating that the preliminary point could be raised at the

substantive hearing, that there was insufficient time for the preliminary hearing before

that hearing, and that the parties should comply with the directions already given.

3    On 9 October the Respondent made a further application for a postponement. It

was said that there was no statement from the Applicant and the Applicant had offered

to exchange witness statements on Friday 11 October. This was too late, according to

the Respondent. However, the Applicant's case is that he could not disclose his

witness statement until the Respondent had completed disclosure, which they have not

done. Further, the Applicant had already disclosed statements for three witnesses,

whereas there had been no compliance with directions by the Respondent. That

application for postponement was refused by the chairman on or about 10 October.

4     Immediately following, the postponement refusal, the Respondent conceded its

case, and sent a fax to the Tribunal notifying the Tribunal that the Respondent

consented to the Tribunal making a declaration that the Applicant was the victim of

unjustifiable discipline within the meaning of Section 65 of the Trade Union and Labour

 Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The letter invited the Tribunal to move directly to

the question of remedy under Section 67 of the Act. The summary reasons therefore

require correction, to this extent - the Tribunal was notified on 10 October of the

concession by the Respondent, not on 14 October. The Applicant in fact does not

pursue any claim for compensation and is content with a declaration that he was

unjustifiably disciplined.

5    The Applicant made an application for his costs and expenses, four days of

 preparation for the case and loss of earnings as a self employed consultant in the total

 sum of @1,381.40 (to include some materials). The basis for the application was that

the behaviour of the Respondent and the conduct of the proceedings was

 unreasonable. It was noted by the Applicant that the Respondent had made three

 applications to postpone hearings without copying him into the applications, that the

 Respondent had not disclosed essential documents such as the investigation report,

that the Respondent not complied with any of the directions, and that they had left it to

 one working day before the hearing to concede the case. On 7 October the Applicant

 had written to the Respondent offering a settlement in which he would not pursue the

 Respondent for compensation if they undertook to cease all outstanding disciplinary

 action against him. The parties could not reach a settlement at that

 

 

2

 

 

 

Case Number: 2202562/02

 

6    The Tribunal considered the provisions of Rule 14 of the Employment Tribunal

Rules of Procedure 2001. The Tribunal has concluded that the Respondent's

behaviour and the conduct of the proceedings has been unreasonable, and agrees with

the Applicant's contention that it appears that the Respondent was "stringing out" for as

long as possible proceedings in the hope that they would go away, the Applicant having

already been re-instated into the union, but the Respondent not acknowledging that he

had unjustifiably disciplined him in the first place when it expelled him. It seems to the

Tribunal that the applications to postpone and the failure to make, in particular, proper

disclosure, were all designed to prolong the proceedings and to attempt to dissuade the

Applicant from continuing with them. In that respect, we conclude the Respondent has

not complied with its duty under Regulation 10 of the Employment Tribunals

(Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2001, to assist the Tribunal in the

furtherance of the overriding objective. The overriding objective is designed, inter alia,

to ensure that the case is dealt with justly, which inter alia means saving expense and

ensuring the case is dealt with expeditiously. The Respondent's behaviour appears to

have been designed to incur expense and to lengthen the proceedings.

7     Therefore, the Tribunal make the declaration sought and also make an award of

costs against the Respondent in favour of the Applicant.

 

 

 

 

 

(chairman

 

DECISION SENT TO THE PARTIES ON

    24th December 2002

AND ENTERED IN THE REGISTER

 

FOR SECRETARY OF THE TRIBUNALS