UNISON v Mr Carl Jervis. Unison treats all members this badly, according to Unison lawyers


index.html union-failure.html employee-ownership.org.uk lookatourlaundry.html startyourownunion.html contract-to-members.html old-rules-TGW.html draft-rules-Unite.html unison-lawyers.html annual-report-TGW.html accounts-TGWU.html accounts-CPB.html accounts-PPPS.html forums-about.html hustings.html wishlist.html jol.org.uk

#1.Not discrimination but...
#2.Lawyers on the wrong side.
#3.Officials on the wrong side
#4.Bad service to members
#5.Bad assessment of cases
#6.Tribunal behaviour

BAILII case number: [2006] UKEAT 0134_06_2903 Appeal No. UKEAT/0134/06 2903
At the Tribunal
On 29 March 2006

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE BEAN
MR A HARRIS
MR B M WARMAN

Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
© Copyright 2006

APPELLANT

UNISON
MR A WHITE QC AND
MS E MISRA (Of Counsel) Instructed by Messrs
Berrymans Lace Mawer Solicitors, Salisbury House, London Wall, London, EC2M 5QN MR CARL JERVIS
(The Respondent in Person)

RESPONDENT

MR CARL JERVIS [Unison subscriber and member for 30 years] (The Respondent in person)
SUMMARY

4 and 13

Sex Discrimination

Race Discrimination

Employee brought discrimination claims against employer – TU declined support – TU official gave evidence for respondents – ET rejected subsequent discrimination claims against TU based on refusal of support and the fact of official giving evidence but upheld claims based on providing witness statement to employer's solicitors – no evidence to show even prima facie that this was discriminatory – TU's appeal allowed and claims dismissed.

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE BEAN

This an appeal by the Trade Union UNISON against a decision of an Employment Tribunal chaired by Mr Andrew Gumbiti-Zimuto, sitting at Watford on 17 November 2005, that they had discriminated on the grounds of both sex and race against Mr Jervis who is of Afro-Caribbean ethnic origin.
He began work as a mental health nurse in March 1972 originally at the Leavesden Hospital and became a member of what was then COHSE in April 1972. COHSE amalgamated with NALGO and NUPE in 1993 to form UNISON. In 1995, Mr Jervis was transferred to the Eric Shepherd Unit and worked night shifts. During 2001 and 2002, he raised an objection to the introduction of new shift working arrangements which culminated in grievance and disciplinary hearings. His UNISON regional officer was Lorraine Howlett, his branch secretary was Sandra Beeton. Ms Howlett was, of course, not employed by the NHS Trust but Mrs Beeton was.
In May 2002, Mr Jervis was signed off sick. On 4 September 2002, he submitted a letter of resignation which he later sought, unsuccessfully, to retract. His employment was terminated in early December 2002. Prior to that date he had taken advice from the Union. Ms Howlett wrote to him on 29 October 2002 saying that:

"If you do feel that you were placed under undue pressure within that meeting (on 4 September with management) and that you had no alternative other than to resign, you could bring a claim under the Employment Tribunal proceedings (seek) for unfair dismissal/constructive dismissal… However I do have to inform you that, having discussed your case thoroughly with Sandra Beeton, UNISON could not support any claim that you were to bring with regard to those issues. As already stated, you do however have the right to do so without UNISON support, and I have advised you of the appropriate procedure to follow."

On 9 December 2002, Mr Jervis began Employment Tribunal proceedings against the Trust complaining of unfair constructive dismissal. He was not supported by the Union but was represented by a solicitor at his own expense.
On 17 April 2003, the complaint was amended to include a claim for race discrimination and at the first day of the subsequent hearing it was re-amended to include a claim for sex discrimination.
On 23 July 2003, Mr Jervis wrote to UNISON asking them to pay the legal costs of his claim against the Trust. By letter of 13 August they refused. During August 2003, Ms Howlett was asked by the Trust's solicitors to provide a witness statement. They had discussions with her and drew up a draft statement which she declined to sign. On 28 August, the Employment Tribunal at the request of the Trust's solicitors issued a witness order requiring Ms Howlett to attend to give evidence and likewise made a similar order in relation to Mrs Beeton.
The hearing took place beginning on 14 October 2003. Mr Jervis gave evidence on his own behalf. The Trust called among others, Mrs Beeton and Ms Howlett to give evidence. The hearing occupied nine sitting days. The Applicant and the Trust, the Hertfordshire Partnership NHS Trust, were each represented by counsel; the Tribunal was chaired by Mr Mahoney.
By its reserved decision promulgated on 30 December 2003, the Tribunal upheld Mr Jervis' complaints of unfair dismissal though with a finding of 40 per cent contributory fault, and of sex discrimination. The complaint of race discrimination was dismissed. We do not have the remedies decision but Mr Jervis has told us that he was subsequently awarded, in round figures, some £3,000 for unfair dismissal and some £57,000 for sex discrimination, a total of approximately £60,000.
He had, however, incurred substantial legal costs in establishing that case and wrote to UNISON on 11 February 2004 and again on 9 September 2004, complaining of its refusal to pay his costs. On 11 January 2005, he began proceedings in the Tribunal against UNISON alleging sex and race discrimination. In Box 11 of the Originating Application he gave details of his complaint as follows:

"When my former employer Hertfordshire Partnership NHS Trust tried to change our shift pattern I was treated less favourably by UNISON compared to the way UNISON treated my colleagues who are female and white.
I consider that I have been treated very badly by UNISON and request that the Tribunal agrees with me that I was sexually and racially discriminated against."

As Mr Antony White, QC who has appeared before us for UNISON has pointed out, those brief grounds appear to relate entirely to alleged less favourable treatment while Mr Jervis was employed by the Trust rather than subsequently to the termination of his employment. It alleged in other words a failure of representation in dealings with the former employer rather than of representation before the Tribunal.
On 15 February 2005, UNISON responded to the claim; denying discrimination and also making the point that the claims were out of time. The issue of whether the claims were out of time came before Mr Gumbiti-Zimuto, sitting alone, on 2 June 2005. The learned Chairman ruled that Mr Jervis' complaints relating to events prior to the termination of employment in December 2002 were out of time. He refused to exercise his discretion under the "just and equitable" sections of the discrimination statutes to extend time.
However, the Originating Application was not, by this time, the sole basis of the complaint. The Chairman's judgment at paragraph 5 says this:

"The second category of complaints which the claimant makes is that the Union failed to support him during the period when he brought his claim to the Employment Tribunal. He says that he requested assistance with his legal costs in about July 2003 and sometime thereafter the Union refused. The Claimant stated that after he received the liability decision in his favour, that he revised his complaint and subsequently that decision to refuse him legal assistance was either re-affirmed or another decision to the same effect was made."

As to the complaint of lack of support from UNISON in relation to the Employment Tribunal claim made by Mr Jervis against the NHS Trust the Chairman held, as was plainly the case, that those complaints too were out of time but held that it was just and equitable for time to be extended so that the Tribunal could consider them. He directed Mr Jervis to provide an Amended Originating Application particularising his complaints that UNISON failed to provide him with support in his proceedings against the Trust.
Mr Jervis provided an Amended Originating Application on 6 June 2005. It is a handwritten document running to 25 paragraphs. Most of them, unfortunately, related to Mr Jervis' treatment prior to December 2002 which the Chairman had ruled was out of time. However, paragraph 21 begins:

"At the full merits hearing in October/November 03…Sandra Beeton (UNISON Branch Secretary) and Lorraine Howlett (UNISON Regional Officer) gave evidence on behalf of my ex employer, Hertfordshire Partnership NHS Trust."

At paragraph 25 the document says:
"UNISON have breached their own policy regarding the aims and objects of the Union. See extract from UNISON Rules Booklet (Aims and Objects of the Union)."
The relevant part of the Union Rule Book is in our papers. The arguably relevant sections of the Aims and Objects of the Union as set out in the rule book are:

"B1.2 to seek to ensure equality of treatment and fair presentation for all members and to work for the elimination of discrimination on grounds of race, gender, sexuality, disability, age or creed.
B1.3 to seek to protect the rights of all members to be treated with dignity and respect irrespective of race, gender, sexuality, disability, age or creed.
B3.1 to provide minimum guaranteed standards of advice, representation and service (to members)."

Mr Jervis' Amended Originating Application was met with amended grounds of resistance which began by noting, we believe correctly, that the Chairman's order of 2 June 2005 had limited the issues for determination by the Tribunal at the forthcoming substantive hearing to the following:

"Did the Respondent treat the Claimant less favourably on the grounds of race and/or sex contrary to section 11 of the Race Relations Act 1976 or section 12 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 by failing to support him (financially or otherwise) in his litigation against his former employer the Hertfordshire Partnership NHS Trust from the date that he brought proceedings to the time they concluded in or around June 2004?"

When Mr Jervis, who was then and is now appearing in person, served his witness statement in the Tribunal proceedings against UNISON, he did so by adapting the document originally filed as an Amended Originating Application, giving it a new heading suitable to a statement rather than a pleading; then setting out the 25 previous paragraphs with some helpful page references; and adding at the end, after the allegation that UNISON had breached their policy regarding the aims and objects of the Union, some references to letters and file notes which were said to support the case.
Ms Howlett provided two witness statements to be adduced on behalf of UNISON in the proceedings: the first a very short narrative dated 28 July 2005, the second and rather longer one dated 10 August 2005. Mr Jervis also submitted a supplemental witness statement in response to Ms Howlett's first statement complaining that he did not receive any support from Ms Beeton, nor from Ms Howlett. He complained that when he asked Ms Howlett what he could do, she said that Mr Trewin (that is the relevant line manager) did everything right and that he must try not to get up management's nose. He made a complaint that she had not informed the Trust that his previous shift pattern was a term of his contract of employment and that the attempted variation of that term was potentially a fundamental breach. He complained further that she had not advised him to raise a grievance against his employer. All these were complaints of pre-termination matters which had been ruled out of time. At the end of the witness statement he said:

"Lorraine Howlett never advised me regarding my legal rights."

The hearing before the Employment Tribunal took place on 10 and 11 October 2005. We have been provided without objection with an attendance note compiled by Ms Shabana Mahmood, solicitor of Berrymans Lace & Mawer who were acting for UNISON which records in considerable detail her note of what was said and done. It has therefore been unnecessary to trouble the learned Chairman. (There is also a manuscript note by Ms Misra, of counsel, who represented the Union. Naturally, since Ms Misra was on her feet for part of the time, this is less full and it is no disrespect to her to say that we have not been referred to it.)
Ms Mahmood's note shows that at the very outset of the hearing, Ms Misra raised her concern that the large volume of documentation before the Tribunal included what she described as a lot of irrelevant material. The vast majority of the documents, she said, related to matters which were no longer live issues before the Tribunal following the Chairman's interlocutory decision to refuse to extend time in respect of the December 2002 issues [because the union member had had to study law in three months while off sick after a career in night-shift nursing. You'd think a lawyer would be ashamed to say something like this but apparently it went down OK]
The hearing proceeded. Mr Jervis read out his witness statement and was then asked questions in the nature of evidence in chief by the Chairman. In Ms Mahmood's note at paragraphs 12 to 16, we find these questions by the Chairman and answers by Mr Jervis.

"12. What other support did you ask UNISON for other than legal costs?
A. Support all the way. I was entitled to support all the way. UNISON are there to provide support for members.
13. What is it you expected?
A. They could have stressed the points in my favour. They were able to carry on and represent me at the employment tribunal hearing. They did not support my case and so I had to get solicitors of my own. UNISON should have been the ones supporting me.
14. Once you decided to start the case, how do you say there was a lack of support from the Union?
A. I thought they could have pressed my employer and maybe try to get me some more family support my wife is also an employee and a member of UNISON.
15. Did you receive help in the conduct of your case? Such as someone to talk to?
A. No they didn't help me conduct the case. I had to instruct my own solicitor because they would not support me and give me legal representation.
16. Did you ask?
A. No they knew all about it. They never even advised me, you know, that I could raise a grievance."

After cross-examination by Ms Misra and a few final questions from the Tribunal, the Claimant's case concluded and Ms Howlett then gave evidence. She was cross-examined first by Mr Jervis and at paragraph 23 of this section of the Notes the following exchanges occurred (the passage in square brackets is Ms Mahmood's):

Why did you and Sandra Beeton give evidence at my tribunal hearing?
A. I was witness ordered and wasn't given a choice, once you have a witness order you have to attend, and the same is true for Sandra Beeton.
Chairman reference to bundle and letters from Gemma Webb.
Chairman: Why were you in communication with the Trust?
A. Well, in one sense I am always in communication with the Trust because I sit on a group which reviews their policies. So we are always reviewing their internal policies to make sure that they are not breaching employment regulations. Oh sorry, I misunderstood -in relation to this case and Mr Jervis, I was not in communication with the Trust. They approached me to give evidence and I refused and said I would not give evidence without a witness order.
Chairman Basically you went behind your member's back. I mean that would obviously make him feel bad wouldn't it? You simply went behind your member's back and helped out his former employer? [What is that being based on? Raise with EM -inappropriate tone and questioning of Lorraine -not raised by Mr Jervis].
A. I did not go behind Carl's back. At page 338 I had said that I was not appearing as a witness without an order I was not doing it voluntarily. I wasn't volunteering my information or my views or my assessment of the case and what I believe was right or wrong I said that I would not do it without a witness order.
Chairman How often have you appeared for a respondent against one of your members?
A. Me personally, this is the only time that I can recall." [I don't believe her: there is another case on Google of Unison doing this. And why say "that I can recall?" - EO]

In closing submissions both orally and in writing, Ms Misra sought to emphasize that Mr Jervis should be limited to the case which he had put.
In its reserved decision which followed a discussion in Chambers on 25 October, the Tribunal found in Mr Jervis' favour on both sex and race discrimination. In paragraph 4 they said:
In their findings of fact they rejected, as they were entitled to do, the evidence of Ms Howlett that she was not willing to support the Trust against the Claimant or willing to give evidence for the Trust. They noted that this was the only occasion of which Ms Howlett could give evidence where a regional officer had given evidence for the employer against the Union member in a Tribunal.
After referring to the Race Relations Act and Sex Discrimination Act and the decision of the Court of Appeal in Igen v Wong [2005] ICR 931 they confirmed in paragraph 7:
They then went on to deal with the issues one by one. Firstly in paragraph 8 they said:
They went on to find:
In paragraph 11 they went on to the third and final head of claim, which was a complaint that:
They said:
At paragraph 12 they said:
After setting out section 12(3) of the Sex Discrimination Act and section 11 of the Race Relations Act, the Tribunal continued:
Mr White's first ground of appeal is that the Tribunal found against his clients on a ground which had not been put forward by Mr Jervis. The allegations which Mr Jervis had made, of failure to support his Tribunal proceedings by the provision of presentation or assistance, and the subsequent failure to pay the legal fees which he had occurred, were rejected as allegations of discrimination by the Tribunal. In contrast, those negative allegations having been rejected, the Tribunal found UNISON liable on the grounds that Ms Howlett had inappropriately provided assistance to the Trust, (other than by the giving of evidence itself, which the Tribunal rightly found not to be capable of being a detriment), and had compounded that inappropriate behaviour by the failure to inform the Claimant of her actions. Those positive allegations, Mr White complains, were introduced into the proceedings by the Chairman and formed no part of Mr Jervis' pleaded case.
In the well-known decision of Chapman v Simon [1994] IRLR 124 Balcombe LJ, Gibson LJ and Stuart-Smith LJ held that an employment tribunal had erred in law in making a finding of race discrimination where the matters on which the finding was based had not been the subject of complaint in the Originating Application. Gibson LJ said at paragraph 42:
In another case this time in this Tribunal, British Gas Services Ltd v McCaull [2001] IRLR 60, Keene J, as he then was, giving the judgment of this Tribunal, said:
We respectfully agree with that and would add that we accept Mr White's submissions that that danger is accentuated since the new provisions relating to the burden of proof; the decision of this Tribunal in Barton v Investec Henderson Crosthwaite Securities [2003] ICR 1205, and, particularly, the decision of the Court of Appeal in Igen Ltd v Wong. If a Tribunal makes a finding on the basis of facts which were not complained of in the originating application and where the party against whom the finding is made had had no proper opportunity to respond to the allegations; then uses that finding to find (under the first step in Igen v Wong) that a prima facie case has been made out; and then goes on, as this Tribunal did, to find that the Respondents have not advanced adequate evidence to displace the burden of proof, the potential failure of due process is particularly serious.
The Tribunal regarded it as a matter to be held against UNISON that Ms Howlett had not dealt with this issue in her witness statement. In paragraph 18 of their decision they say:

"In her witness statement, Lorraine Howlett gives no explanation for her actions."

She was entitled not to do so because the allegation had not at that stage been made.
Mr White's second point is that the Tribunal drew an unsustainable distinction between the giving of evidence and steps preparatory to the giving of evidence. As a criticism of paragraphs 15 and 16 of the Tribunal's decision we think that this short submission is well founded. But it does not stop there. Mr White's first two points can properly be combined in this way. The Tribunal found that in not informing the Claimant of her willingness to testify on behalf of the Trust and the provision of assistance to the Trust preparatory to the actual giving of evidence, Ms Howlett had committed a discriminatory act. But that as we see it could only be the case if Ms Howlett would have behaved differently had Mr Jervis been white or female or both. There is in our view nothing in the material before the Tribunal which would even amount to a prima facie case that Ms Howlett would have behaved differently in this respect had the relevant Union member been white or female or both and the Tribunal make no such finding. In the absence of such a finding we regret to say that we simply do not see on what basis it could have been found that these actions by Ms Howlett constituted prima facie evidence of race or sex discrimination.
The Tribunal in this case, so far from making such a finding, had been emphatic in paragraph 8 that:

"(a) failing to provide the Claimant with representation or assistance in the bringing of his claim, the Union through Ms Howlett would have acted the same towards any type of hypothetical comparator;
(b) that Lorraine Howlett's actions were due to her view that the Claimant's case had no merit.; and
(c) that there is nothing to suggest that the view she took of the merits was tainted by considerations of the Claimant's sex or race."
Having made those findings it would have been quite extraordinary for the Tribunal to have gone on to find, that had Mr Jervis been white or female or both, Ms Howlett would have refrained from providing assistance to the Trust before the Tribunal hearing, or would have kept the Claimant informed of her communications with the Trust. In fact they did not do so.
These conclusions make it unnecessary for us to consider Mr White's final point which is that in any event Ms Howlett was not personally a party to the proceedings and that UNISON could only be found liable for discrimination by her, whether under section 41 of the Sex Discrimination Act or section 32 of the Race Relations Act if the requirements of subsection (2) of each of those sections was satisfied and that in this case they were not. That raises an interesting point about the scope of the authority conferred by the Union on a full-time official. We will not venture to deal with it in this case.
Mr Jervis told us at the outset of his brief and helpful submissions that he had experienced a great deal of stress and depression as a result of the way he has been treated and that that stress and depression have continued. We sympathize with that and, we sympathize with the fact that he has had to cope with this case, including the appeal to us, without assistance. Nevertheless, it seems to us that the law is very clear and that the Tribunal's decision in his favour cannot be sustained. [underling mine - EO]
We therefore allow the appeal, set aside the decision of the Employment Tribunal and dismiss the Originating Application.

REASON FOR QUOTING THIS

1
This wasn't discrimination, so Unison treat all their members as badly as they treated Mr Jervis.
The tribunal is hearing a case by a union against its member. This court hears discriminition cases by members against unions, dispite being called an Employment Appeal Tribunal, so Unison have persuaded a court to say they treat all their members as badly as Mr Jervis. They have lost a first case, and, un-embarrassed, have paid lawyers to appeal. A similar case by University and College Union is listed on the contract-to-members.html page here in which they argued that members had more-or-less no rights to help according to their rule book, so cases like this aren't unique.

To digress, the background is a bunch staff on the night shift and another bunch of staff on the day shift who quite likely get the training, pay, chances of career breaks that the Mr Jervis hasn't taken since 1972. Anyone running an institution ought I think to mix the shifts a little or find other jobs that nightworkers are able to do say one month in six. That's something the union hadn't achieved since 1972 dispite their rep being invited to regular meetings with management about "procedure" and Mr Jervis was complaining about some change for the worse when advised by the union rep "not to get up the mangement's nose" and rapidly facing something like an unfair dismissal which the union didn't advise him how to handle. You can see nightshift discrimination here and the only point is whether race discrimination of just fecklessness was the cause. Unison argued that they were feckless.
The tribunal agreed.
2
Unison Lawyers are on the wrong side. Lots of them.
Mr Jervis is trying to get money out of Unison to pay for his last court case where they should have helped him, but couldn't be arsed. They didn't even provide a cheapskate no-win no-fee lawyer, charge the lawyer a referral fee, and dress this up as help worth a lifetime's membership subsciptions. The refusal to help was passed to Mr Jervis by memo from a volunteer who had "spoken to" a paid member of staff. In contrast, Unison's own defense team don't look like cheapskate lawyers who have bid to be on a panel and offer cash back to the union for referrals: the solicitor can afford an office in the City, there's a separate barrester (who complained at the amount of paperwork - how unjust is that?) and then by the appeal there are two barristers - the second one described in Chambers as

"an exceptional advocate able to save a sinking ship"

3
Union's official and volunteer rep turned-up on the wrong side too,
This was at Mr Jervis' first discrimination case against his employer.
They couldn't help being summoned as a witness, but they didn't warn Mr Jervis: they went "behind his back". Even if he had resigned his membership by this point, he had been paying subscriptions since 1972 and they could have tracked him down. The official still works for Unison.

4
Service to members at work

Unison's human resources work, pre-resignation, was to advise their member "not to get up the management's nose."
The management is known to be sneezy, but they also meet a day-shift union rep regularly to discuss procedures.
Nothing says that Unison's rep tried to make good suggestions for mixing night and day shifts or put Mr Jervis' suggestion to the NHS Trust.
When changes were made to the shift pattern that Mr Jervis didn't want to live with, events came to a head.
Unison did not suggest that a shift pattern could have become part of his contract.
Unison did not suggest that treating a black nightshift worse than a white day shift might be discrimination.
Unison did not suggest that a grievance letter might be worth a shot before resigning.
Mr Jervis did get up the management's nose, something happened: he resigned and then tried to retract his resignation, and began collecting papers.
Unison does not help him make sense of the papers or advise on whether to resign or not. He has to study law or find-out about no-win no-fee lawyers while depressed.

5
Assessment of a member's legal case against an ex employer after resignation

The assessmemt system for the Unison member's trubunal case seems to be for a volunteer to phone an unqualified official and then pass a memo or an email to the member to say he won't be backed. They didn't even help him prepare documents when he went ahead anyway, or send an official to represent him rather than pay for a lawyer, even though the employer's side would get at least secretarial help and general advice from their human resources department. Just in case Mr Jervis confuses a trade union with a court (why should anyone confuse the two?) he is told that he can complain to the tribunal directly. It isn't said that they gave him the tribunal's address or phone number or url, or lent him a textbook, or took him through detailed reasons not to go to court and quite likely they hadn't even assessed his paperwork because his volunteer rep had "spoken to Sandra Beeton" not "met Sandra Beeton" so it was probably a phone call.

The assessment was wrong, as Mr Jervis proved by winning a £60,000 case against the employer, and his life is recorded on Bailii after he has nearly got his legal costs back from Unison by telling a tribunal that they are discriminating against a member. Unembarrassed, the union appealed and this is only reported because appeal tribunals could be part of case law, so all of them are reported. There are no newspaper reporters; nobody thinks it odd that a union has lawyers on the wrong side against a member.

6
Tribunal behaviour

I got the same tribunal chair who's judgement was overturned by the appeal tribunal. I got him a few months later for my pre-hearing review.
The union lawyer asked me not to attend so I don't know what happened in most of the pre-hearing review, before the chair advised him to call me for a second sitting that afternoon. The lawyer seemed to me, in retrospect, to be working for the other side. He had refused to take any evidence from me, make-up a bundle or understand the grievance and discrimination questionnaire that I'd had to do myself. He wasn't up to date with the law. In retrospect I think he was trying to loose it as quickly as possible to cut his losses after the other side hadn't settled. When I turned-up for the second part of the pre-hearing review he didn't tell that most of the case had been discussed. He told me where to get a sandwich.

I would have expected the chair to

chuck the chancer out so that I could being the case again myself
stop the hearing until the lawyer called me - which is what happened - but then to ask what was in my bag of evidence seeing as the lawyer had refused to read it, or at least
tell me what had been discussed earlier so that I could guess that the lawyer needed to be dismissed.

The chair did none of the above. I only discovered that nearly the whole case was out of the window without any evidence being seen when the chair closed the hearing and found most points against me. I told the chair that my case was now against the T&G and asked if he could bear this in mind when making his written judgement.

"I cannot do that and I think you know the reason why not", he said

It's hard to explain a riddle. Tribunal chairs do not usually speak in riddles, which would be ridiculous, so I suppose he was either patronising me or saying something indirectly that could damage his career if said directly. After googling his name I discovered his recent overturned judgement above, and guess that the reason for it being overturned was not the one stated by the appeal tribunal - he was no better at natural justice in my case than Mr Jervis's - but because he had criticised a union. Another recent word document from the appeals trubunal (UKEAT/0349/07/DM) shows another of his judgements challenged because parties didn't have a chance to know what was going-on, so the judging style looks unchanged. What did change was treatment of trades unions.

Based on a survey of members leaving UNISON, this study suggests that more than 40,000 members leave the union every year because of their dissatisfaction with some aspect of structure, organisation or policy. This analysis identifies some of the barriers faced by unions that are attempting to promote more participative unionism in order to reduce rates of membership turnover. There is a charge to buy the study so I don't know the detail.

...................................

Contact Employees.org.uk .