Union Body Erred in Rejecting Member's Claims, Tribunal Rules
The EAT has ruled the Certification Officer incorrectly refused a union member's applications, failing to properly consider internal procedures. The case highlights key aspects of trade union law.
• public
Employment Appeal Tribunal Finds Certification Officer Erred in UCU Case
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has overturned a decision by the Certification Officer regarding a series of applications made by Dr Vikas Chandra against the University and College Union (UCU). The ruling, handed down on 20 May 2025, found that the Certification Officer had erred in law by refusing to accept Dr Chandra’s complaints, deeming them not arguable.
Background to the Case
Dr Chandra, formerly Chair of the London School of Economics (LSE) branch of the UCU, submitted applications to the Certification Officer alleging that the disciplinary procedure applied to him by the UCU was unlawful. These applications followed internal complaints against Dr Chandra, which were subsequently upheld by an NEC Panel of the UCU and later dismissed on appeal.
Legal Issues and Tribunal's Reasoning
The EAT, presided over by The Honourable Mr Justice Bourne, considered whether the Certification Officer had the authority to reject Dr Chandra’s applications at such an early stage. The core issue revolved around the interpretation of sections 108A, 108B, and 256ZA of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
The Tribunal found that the Certification Officer's decision did not fall within the limited circumstances outlined in section 108B, which permits refusal of an application only if internal procedures have not been exhausted. It was also agreed that the circumstances did not warrant striking out the case under section 256ZA.
Mr Justice Bourne stated that the Certification Officer’s practice of considering whether an application is ‘arguable’ and rejecting it if not, risked undermining statutory requirements for procedural fairness. The EAT emphasised that if internal procedures have been exhausted, the Certification Officer must make appropriate enquiries and give the parties an opportunity to be heard.
Outcome and Remittal
The appeal was allowed, and the applications have been remitted back to the Certification Officer for reconsideration. The EAT clarified that it had not made any final determination on the merits of the substantive issues raised in Dr Chandra's original complaints.
The Tribunal's decision highlights the importance of adhering to proper procedures when dealing with union members' grievances and reinforces the statutory protections afforded to those who bring claims against their trade unions.
The Respondent, UCU, was represented by Mr Tom Brown, Counsel for the Respondent. Dr Chandra appeared in person.
Read the entire judgement here: Dr Vikas Chandra v The University and College Union [2025] EAT 70
