The claimant has been employed by the PSNI since 1984 and was seconded to NIPSA as a trade union representative in 2006.   In 2017 he became involved with NIPSA members in the Firearms and Explosives Branch of the PSNI.   The issues centred upon the change-over from paper firearm applications to online applications.  The claimant was involved in trying to resolve issues with the process in the move to online applications.   The style of dealing with it was ‘not welcome’ by senior management including the second respondent. After a request from the second respondent, Ms Murphy, it was agreed that a colleague of the claimant would take over in the Firearms and Explosives Branch.  One of the primary issues outstanding was the way in which applications would be dealt with and if some should be taken out of date order depending on the circumstances.

In 2017 after he had been replaced, the claimant lodged an application to vary his Firearms Certificate which was approved in July 2017 and issued to him in November 2017.   There was no suggestion that the claimant sought or received any escalation or special status.  In September 2017, Ms Murphy stated that she had been advised that the claimant’s application had been escalated.  She was unable, however, to state who had informed her of this.  On foot of this, she sent an email to the claimant’s replacement with the implication that the claimant had used his position as a NIPSA representative to obtain preferential treatment.  After further investigation Ms Murphy was able to ascertain the correct position in that there had been no escalation.  That being said, the Tribunal found that Ms Murphy had jumped to a conclusion motivated by her desire to undermine the claimant in his role as a NIPSA representative.  The claimant was informed of the email some 9 months later by his replacement on 5th June 2018 and he issued his claim on 3rd September. This meant the claim was within the time limit.

The claim was based upon Article 73 of the Employment Rights (NI) Order 1996 which states that a worker has the right not to be subjected to any detriment in relation to taking part in the activities of an independent trade union or penalising him for doing so.  The Tribunal outlined that detriment is not defined in the legislation but that it is akin to being put at a disadvantage.  On that basis, the Tribunal found that there had been a detriment as the email impugned the good name of the claimant with no evidence to back it up.   This was compounded by the fact Ms Murphy did not retract the allegation or inform Ms Godfrey that the application had been dealt with properly.  The respondent outlined that the email had been sent to ensure NIPSA were notified as early as possible and out of a culture of openness and transparency.   However, the Tribunal did not accept these reasons citing that the claimant had been singled out for hisTrade Union activities and even a cursory investigation would have shown there was nothing untoward.  On the issue of remedy, there was a finding of injury to feelings as a result of the embarrassment that the employer had raised unfounded allegations relating to the claimant’s integrity.  Accordingly, £3,000 was awarded that being at the lower end of the Vento Scale.

Practical Lessons

This case centres upon a rarely seen area of Article 73 of the 1996 Order and detriment for Trade Union activities.    The Tribunal has outlined a fairly simple definition of detriment meaning that it is akin to being disadvantaged.  The takeaway from this case is that nobody should be treated differently for their trade union activities and this extends to those matters external to employment, such as a firearms application.

NI Tribunal decisions are available on the OITFET website:
http://www.employmenttribunalsni.co.uk/