Trade union membership and activities 





It is automatically unfair to select someone for redundancy on grounds of their trade union membership or activities (section 153, Trade Union and Labour Relations Consolidation Act 1992 (TULRCA). This includes activities connected with union recognition (see Chapter 5).





The selection of two employees for having been strike activists was an automatically unfair dismissal (Britool v Roberts [1993] IRLR 481). So was selecting someone for redundancy because they spent too much time on union activities (Dundon v GPT [1995] IRLR 403). 





It was an unlawful trade union detriment (section 146, TULRCA) to delete a role from a proposed restructuring plan when the employer realised that the union activist who had led opposition to the restructuring was well suited to that role (University of Bolton v Corrigan [2015] UKEAT/0408/14/RN).



An employer cannot assess an employee for redundancy based on skills demonstrated while acting as a safety rep. An employee’s duties as a safety rep should not impact, positively or negatively, on a redundancy selection decision. The basis for this ruling is that it would harm a rep’s independence to allow management evaluation of their performance of their statutory duties to form part of a redundancy selection exercise (Smiths Industries v Rawlings [1996] IRLR 656).





A union rep who was given a different role to accommodate his trade union duties was not unfairly dismissed when he was selected for redundancy from that role, even though there was still a need for work in his original post (O’Dea v ISC Chemicals [1995] IRLR 599). 





It is automatically unfair (section 104F, ERA 96) to select an employee for redundancy where the reason for selection relates to a blacklist (see Chapter 5).