Harassment by members of another union

Strike 146x219The Court of Appeal has found that a trade unionist was subjected to a detriment when his employer failed to prevent harassment at work by members of another union. Nicholas Le Riche reports.

Workers have the right to not be subjected to a detriment by any act, or deliberate failure to act, by their employer which aims to prevent or deter them from being a trade union member or from taking part in union activities, or to penalise them for doing so.

A Tribunal must be satisfied that this was the sole or main purpose of the employer’s conduct (Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, Section 147). In Bone v North Essex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, the Court of Appeal has ruled that an employee suffered detriment when his employer deliberately failed to act to prevent his harassment at work, in part, so that it would not offend another trade union. Mr Bone worked for the NHS Trust as a mental health nurse. He was a leading activist of the Workers of England Union (WEU), a small independent nationalist trade union. In addition, he was a member of Unison. The Trust had a partnership agreement with a number of recognised trade unions including Unison but not the WEU. Neither the recognised unions nor the NHS Trust welcomed the arrival of the WEU.

Mr Bone brought various claims against the Trust including allegations that a number of acts and omissions constituted detriment on grounds related to his trade union activities. The Employment Tribunal upheld his complaints in relation to the following issues:

  • a colleague who was also Unison’s local representative circulated an email suggesting that the WEU was linked to fascism and the British National Party;
  • the same colleague later greeted Mr Bone with the words ‘Hello Adolf’;
  • another colleague described Mr Bone as a bigot;
  • the local Unison branch official sent an internal email to another member of staff expressing concerns about the ‘creeping crypto-fascism’ of WEU; and
  • none of these matters were dealt with in accordance with the Trust’s disciplinary procedures and dignity at work policies.

The Tribunal found that local Unison officials had set out to ostracise and intimidate Mr Bone because of his WEU membership and the leading role he was taking in the workplace on WEU’s behalf. Although the Tribunal accepted that the Trust did not assist Unison in these actions, it held that the Trust had deliberately failed to protect Mr Bone from a campaign of harassment and bullying because it feared offending one of the major recognised unions in its workplace, and wished to discourage others from joining the WEU. The Tribunal concluded that the Trust had subjected Mr Bone to a detriment by deterring him from taking part in WEU activities or penalising him for doing so.

The Appeal Tribunal allowed an appeal by the Trust. However, the Court of Appeal has now allowed a further appeal by Mr Bone, restoring the decision of the Employment Tribunal. The Court of Appeal agreed that the Trust’s main purpose in not taking appropriate action was to limit Mr Bone’s and WEU’s influence in the workplace, motivated by a desire to appease Unison.

The facts of this case are somewhat extreme, and there was clear evidence that the main intention behind the Trust’s failure to act or intervene to protect Mr Bone was to limit his trade union activity. This also highlights the importance of investigating and dealing with all allegations of bullying and harassment fairly and in accordance with grievance and disciplinary procedures. Seeking to maintain good relations with a recognised union will not be seen as a defence to inaction or inappropriate action.

Nicholas Le Riche is a partner at Bircham Dyson Bell. He can be contacted on 020 7783 3560 or This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. This article first appeared on the firm’s Employment Law Blog.