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. 

https://www.gov.uk/employment-appeal-tribunal-decisions/scottish-federation-of-housing-associations-v-polly-jones-2022-eat-114