Latest in Employment Law>Case Law>Scottish Federation of Housing Associations v Jones [2022]
Scottish Federation of Housing Associations v Jones [2022]
Published on: 04/08/2022
Issues Covered: Dismissal
Article Authors The main content of this article was provided by the following authors.
Jason Elliott BL Lecturer in Law and Barrister
Jason Elliott BL Lecturer in Law and Barrister

Jason Elliott was called to the Bar of Northern Ireland in 2013 and is the Associate Head of School of Law at Ulster University.  As a practising barrister, he has developed a largely civil practice representing individuals, companies and public bodies in litigation. This covers a wide range of areas including personal injuries, wills and employment law. In terms of employment law, he has represented both applicants and respondents in the Industrial Tribunal.   At Ulster University, Jason lectures extensively on the civil areas of practise such as Equity and Trusts and delivers employment law lectures for both undergraduate and postgraduate students.

Background

The claimant worked as the Head of Membership and Policy for the respondent. The respondent represents housing associations in Scotland. Within the conditions of the claimant’s employment she was prohibited from having a formal political role. In October 2019, the claimant informed the respondent that she wanted to run for the Labour Party in the General Election called for December 2019. The respondent did not consent to the request and the claimant decided against standing. 

One month later in November 2019, the claimant was dismissed with a variety of reasons being given. The claimant felt that the reason she was being dismissed was she wished to stand for election. The claimant brought a claim for unfair dismissal but did not have the two years’ qualifying service (Note: one year only required in Northern Ireland). However, the claimant argued that Section 108(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 applied and that the dismissal was in relation to the employee’s political opinion or affiliation.  

A preliminary hearing was held to determine if Section 108(4) applied and it was held at first instance that it did.  The Judge stated that the words ‘relates to’ within the legislation meant that even though the dismissal had nothing directly related to her affiliation with Labour it was those opinions which meant she wanted to stand as a candidate. The Judge also found that it was a belief and could be protected under a discrimination claim. This was on the basis that participating in democracy was a serious and important belief. The respondent appealed and it was partially upheld by the EAT. It was held that the meaning behind the legislative protection relating to political opinion was so that individuals were not dismissed for holding those opinions rather than ancillary aspects relating to such an opinion. As a result, the words in the legislation should be read with Parliament’s intention in mind. Therefore, where the content of the opinion is not any part of the reason for dismissal then Section 108 ought not to apply. The EAT however dismissed the second appeal relating to the discrimination claim. They agreed that the belief that individuals should stand for office if democracy is to thrive is sufficiently cogent.  Therefore, the case remitted back to the Tribunal for full hearing. 

Practical Lessons

This case demonstrates an important, if slightly nuanced, interpretation of ‘relates to’ in the legislation when it comes to avoiding the qualifying period for unfair dismissal. The EAT expressly stated that a literal view would have allowed the claimant’s case to continue. However, such a view as not what Parliament intended as it was to protect individuals holding particular political opinions. As the dismissal was not related to the opinions or views of the claimant then it followed that Parliament did not intend for greater protection to be given merely for wishing to stand in an election. This has the effect of curtailing the extent to which that section operates in practice and is an interesting example of the courts avoiding a literal interpretation of legislation. 

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 04/08/2022