AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

BRS sacking fair

16th February 1985
Page 8
Page 8, 16th February 1985 — BRS sacking fair
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

A MEMBER of a trade union operating as a closed shop who resigned because of the union's alleged oppressive behaviour was not "constructively expelled" unreasonably within the meaning of the 1980 Employment Act, the Employment Appeals Tribunal has ruled.

It dismissed appeals by former Midlands BRS driver John McGhee against rulings of a Swindon industrial tribunal that the Transport and General Workers' Union had not constructively expelled him and that his dismissal by the company was not unfair.

Mr McGhee argued that although there was no specific reference to "constructive expulsion" in the 1980 Act, like the provisions relating to constructive dismissal, such a concept could be implied from the wording of the Act.

He also argued that the Industrial tribunal had been wrong in holding that Mr McGhee did not have a deeply held personal conviction which prevented him from being a member of a trade union.

Where a closed shop operated, as at Midlands BRS, a person had a right not to be unreasonably expelled from the union, In this case, the behaviour of the union, which compelled Mr McGhee to resign, amounted to such an unreasonable expulsion.

Dismissing the appeal, Mr Justic Waite said there was no doctrine of constructive expulsion in the 1980 Act. The suggested implications of such a concept was not justified by the language of the Act.

If Parliament had intended that resignation could lead to a complaint of expulsion, it would have said so in clear language.

He felt that there was no basis for disturbing the industrial tribunal's view that Mr McGhee's refusal to be a union member was not held on a deeply personal conviction.


comments powered by Disqus