Employment Appeal Tribunal Upholds Dismissal of Trade Union Representative
The EAT has dismissed an appeal from a union representative, confirming his dismissal for bullying and threats to colleagues was legally fair.
• public
Tribunal Confirms Fairness of Dismissal
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has dismissed an appeal brought by Mr P Holmes against Kirklees Council. The case, which centred on allegations of unfair dismissal and trade union detriment, concluded that the original tribunal did not err in law when it found the dismissal to be fair.
Background to the Dispute
Mr Holmes, who had served as a full-time trade union representative for the Kirklees branch of UNISON since 1998, faced disciplinary action following complaints of aggressive behaviour. These complaints included accusations of threatening a colleague with violence and a long-standing pattern of bullying, manipulative, and intimidating conduct towards staff members.
Following a protracted investigation and a formal disciplinary hearing, Mr Holmes was dismissed without notice in February 2022. The claimant argued that his dismissal was a result of his trade union activities and that the disciplinary process had been manipulated by the council's management.
Findings of the Employment Appeal Tribunal
His Honour Judge James Tayler rejected the appeal, noting that the tribunal had carefully considered whether the conduct was separable from the claimant's trade union duties. The EAT confirmed that threatening behaviour towards a colleague is wholly unreasonable and extraneous to protected trade union activities.
The judgment highlighted that while the initial investigation into the claimant's conduct was poorly handled, the subsequent disciplinary hearing conducted by Mr Parr was thorough and fair. The EAT found that the decision to dismiss was based on credible evidence, including testimony regarding the claimant's bullying of multiple colleagues over several years.
Furthermore, the court rejected the assertion that the decision-makers were biased or that the disciplinary charges were a pretext to remove a troublesome union official. The judgment emphasised that the claimant failed to meet the high threshold required to establish perversity, meaning the initial tribunal's conclusions were entirely open to it based on the evidence presented.
Read the entire judgment here: Holmes v Kirklees Council [2026] EAT 80
