This appeal concerns a complaint under section 137(1) (a) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULRCA) (GB) regarding a refusal to employ because of trade union membership. The Employment Appeal Tribunal was tasked with interpreting the meaning of trade union membership and whether the decision of the Employment Tribunal was adequately reasoned given the particular facts of the case.

The claimant was employed by the respondent, a leading leisure airline company, and was also a member of the pilots' trade union, BALPA. The claimant ceased employment with the respondent to avail of an alternative opportunity with an airline in the Middle East. A few years later he reapplied for a position with the respondent company yet his application was refused. The reason for the refusal was owing to his trade union membership activities and his role as an advocate and representative for BALPA. Accepting this as the sole reason for the refusal, the Employment Tribunal concluded the respondent had acted in breach of section 137(1) (a).

The respondent appealed the decision, contending the Tribunal had erroneously adopted too broad an approach to trade union membership and had failed to conduct the required exercise for determining the reason for the refusal.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating ‘membership’ for the purposes of section 137(1) (a) TULRCA was not to be construed narrowly as meaning mere membership i.e. the carrying of the union card. It concluded the statutory provisions had to be construed in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights and that a narrow approach would fail to respect the claimant's article 11 right of freedom of association:

"...it was not the mere fact of his BALPA membership but because he had taken part in the activities of that union in actively advocating and promoting its role as representing the interests of the pilots in collectively bargaining for them... the ET correctly focussed on that which was in Mr Meeson's mind: he had continued to feel animosity towards the claimant because of his past attempt to obtain union representation in the workplace... It is nothing to the point that the claimant was not in fact a BALPA member when he applied to be re-employed by the respondent in 2015: the refusal related to his activities at a time when he was a member and the ET was entitled to find that sufficient for section 137(1)(a) purposes."

The equivalent legislation in NI is the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1995.
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2017/0070_17_2510.html