Employment Appeal Tribunal Clarifies National Security and Employment Law Interplay
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has clarified how national security provisions impact employment law claims involving intercepted communications.
• public
Tribunal Navigates National Security in Employment Claims
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has delivered a significant judgment concerning the application of Section 56 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (IPA) within the employment law context. This ruling addresses the complex balance between safeguarding national security and upholding an individual's right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The core issue revolved around whether employment tribunal proceedings could be held in private or "closed" if an employee's role involved material obtained from lawful interception of communications. The National Crime Agency (NCA) argued that Section 56(1)(b) of the IPA, which prohibits disclosures that suggest interception-related conduct may have occurred, would necessitate such closed proceedings. This would, in effect, exclude the employee from their own hearing and prevent them from receiving information about the evidence presented.
His Honour Judge James Tayler, in the judgment cited as EAT 52, considered the "neither confirm nor deny" approach often used in national security cases. However, the EAT determined that a literal interpretation of Section 56(1)(b) could lead to absurd outcomes, potentially excluding employees in blameless roles dealing with lawfully intercepted communications from their own tribunal proceedings. The tribunal highlighted that employment tribunals already possess a range of powers to manage cases involving sensitive information, such as sitting in private or excluding individuals, to protect national security interests.
Crucially, the EAT found that Section 56(1)(b) of the IPA should be interpreted more narrowly in employment law cases. The judgment suggests that this section should only apply to "particular interception-related conduct," requiring tribunals to assess on a case-by-case basis whether the conduct in question poses a genuine risk to national security. This approach aims to ensure that proceedings are not automatically closed and that employees are not unduly prejudiced, while still allowing for necessary protections for sensitive information.
The EAT emphasised that any derogation from the principle of open justice must be justified and proportionate. The judgment underlines the importance of balancing competing interests: the need to protect national security, the principle of open justice, and an individual's right to a fair trial. The tribunal concluded that the IPA's purpose is a proportionate protection of national security, not a blanket exclusion of claimants from hearings that might not pose a risk.
The parties involved are now required to provide written submissions on the next steps for the individual appeals, including discussions on the potential disclosure of material and any further orders needed to protect national security interests.
Read the entire judgment here: Approved Judgment NCA v DP and others EAT 52
