Protection of union members

Under section 137 of TULRCA, there is a statutory right not to be refused work because of membership or non-membership of a union, or because of a refusal to leave or join a union. The EAT has held that a refusal to hire a known trade union activist because he was believed to be “uncooperative and anti-management”, came within the definition of unlawful victimisation on grounds of union membership (Harrison v Kent CC [1995] ICR 434).

Under section 138 of TULRCA, it is also unlawful for an employment agency to refuse services for trade union-related reasons.

It is often difficult to prove that an employer refused to hire because of an individual’s trade union membership. For example, in Miller v Interserve Industrial Services Limited [2012] UKEAT 0244/12/0512, a site manager refused to employ three scaffolders who were experienced shop stewards nominated by recognised union, Unite. Giving evidence, the manager said he refused to take them on not because of their union membership or activities, but instead because he felt the union was dictating who he should employ, and he wanted to send a message that this was his decision. The men lost their claim that they had been refused work because of their union membership. The EAT said it was significant that this workplace was highly unionised and that there was no evidence that the employer objected to their membership of Unite, or their activities as union members, and that future cases should be “scrutinised narrowly”.