Case Number: 2202562/2002

LJ

 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 A D 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.

     SUMMARY REASONS

1    These reasons are given in summary form.

2     Apparently, by concession on Friday of last week, the Respondent agreed that a

declaration in the terms sought by the Applicant should be made, and conceded that

there had been unjustifiable discipline of the Applicant when he was expelled from the

union. This was not notified to the Tribunal until this morning, the first day of a four day

hearing.

 

3    The Applicant made an application for his costs and expenses, essentially 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 in the conduct of the proceedings was

unreasonable.  In support of that allegation the Applicant pointed to the fact that the

Respondent had failed to comply with all, or almost all, of the directions of the Tribunal

in August 2002.   The  Respondent had  not disclosed  relevant documents such  as

minutes of the disciplinary meeting, had not compiled a bundle and had not disclosed

or sought to exchange witness statements.  Further, the Respondent had made three

applications to the Tribunal to postpone the hearing, all those applications being

unsuccessful.

4    The Tribunal have concluded that the Respondent's behaviour in the conduct of

the proceedings had been unreasonable, and agreed with the Applicant's contention

that it appeared that the Respondent was "stringing out" for as long as possible the

proceedings in the hope that they would go away, the Applicant having already been

reinstated  into  the  union,  but the  Respondent  not  acknowledging  that  it  had

unjustifiably disciplined him in the first place when it expelled him.  It seemed 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 that 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 appeared to be designed to incur expense and to lengthen the proceedings.

5     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

8th November 2002

AND ENTERED IN THE REGISTER

 

FOR SECRETARY OF THE TRIBUNALS