Croad v University and College Union [2012]
Decision Number:
Published on: 22/06/2012
Article Authors
The main content of this article was provided by the following authors.
Background
The Claimant was a university lecturer who suffered from both dyslexia and depression and stress. She sued the union for disability discrimination in that they withdrew representational and legal support. During the course of her relationship with the union, she complained that University and College Union (UCU) had refused to contact her employer, or attend a disciplinary hearing on her behalf. She also complained about a number of union representatives and their handling of her case. Her relationship with UCU eventually terminated when the union withdrew legal representation after the Claimant refused to agree to follow its advice. The Claimant complained to an employment tribunal that the union had discriminated against her on the grounds of her disability by failing to make reasonable adjustments to the way in which it provided support to her. She also claimed she had been discriminated against on the grounds of gender. Croad said UCU‟s treatment of her consisted of harassment and victimisation because she had made a complaint, that it had treated her unfairly, and had failed to take her disability into account.The ET held that UCU had not failed to make reasonable adjustments in the way it communicated with her or in failing to go beyond its normal practices in terms of representation and advice. There had been no discriminatory action by UCU. In particular, it was not discriminatory for UCU to insist that the claimant would only receive its support if she agreed to accept its advice, as this had no connection with her disability. The tribunal held the reason support was withdrawn was not because she had brought proceedings against the union, but because bringing those proceedings created a conflict of interest. The claimant appealed.Dismissing the appeal, the EAT agreed with the tribunal that the union was correct to withdraw support, due to a fundamental conflict of interest. The EAT held that the fact that the union faced proceedings linked with Croad‟s claim against her employer meant that UCU could not be criticised for not acting, as this created a conflict of interest. The decision may mean that unions will be less reluctant to withdraw representation where claims are weak.http://bit.ly/LlxF17
Continue reading
We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.
Already a subscriber?
Please log in to view the full article.
What you'll get:
- Help understand the ramifications of each important case from NI, GB and Europe
- Ensure your organisation's policies and procedures are fully compliant with NI law
- 24/7 access to all the content in the Legal Island Vault for research case law and HR issues
- Receive free preliminary advice on workplace issues from the employment team
Already a subscriber? Log in now or start a free trial
Disclaimer
The information in this article is provided as part of Legal Island's Employment Law Hub. We regret we are not able to respond to requests for specific legal or HR queries and recommend that professional advice is obtained before relying on information supplied anywhere within this article.
This article is correct at 22/06/2012
Q&A
How do I handle it
Legal Island’s LMS, licensed to you
Imagine your staff having 24/7 access to a centralised training platform, tailored to your organisation’s brand and staff training needs, with unlimited users.
Learn more →