Unite the Union Wins Appeal: Tribunal Upholds Certification Officer's Decision in Simpson Case
The EAT has dismissed Tom Simpson's appeal against Unite, supporting the Certification Officer's ruling that the union's disciplinary process was fair and unbiased.
• public
Unite the Union Prevails in Employment Appeal Tribunal Case
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has ruled in favour of Unite the Union, dismissing an appeal brought by Mr. Tom Simpson. The case, Simpson v Unite the Union [2025] EAT 149, centered on a challenge to the Certification Officer's decision regarding Unite's disciplinary procedures against Mr. Simpson.
Mr. Simpson argued that the disciplinary process, which led to his expulsion from Unite, was flawed due to apparent pre-determination bias. His complaint focused on the involvement of Mr. Gillespie, who chaired the disciplinary panel after having been involved in earlier stages of the investigation.
Key Issues in the Appeal
Mr. Simpson raised three primary grounds for appeal:
- That the Certification Officer misapplied the legal test for apparent bias, potentially setting too high a bar.
- That the Certification Officer failed to consider whether the separation of decision-making functions in other unions' disciplinary processes was a relevant factor.
- That the Certification Officer failed to take into account relevant evidence and/or provide adequate reasoning.
Tribunal's Findings
The EAT, led by Marcus Pilgerstorfer KC, Deputy Judge of the High Court, rejected all three grounds of appeal. The Tribunal found that the Certification Officer had correctly identified and applied the appropriate legal test for apparent pre-determination bias which is: whether a fair-minded and informed observer, knowing the facts, would think that there was a real possibility that Mr Gillespie had predetermined the matter. It held that there was no evidence to suggest a fair minded observer would have considered the process to have been biased or unfair.
The Tribunal also determined that the Certification Officer did not err in failing to consider the practices of other unions regarding separation of functions, as this point was not argued before the Officer.
Finally, the EAT concluded that the Certification Officer had adequately considered the relevant evidence and provided sufficient reasoning for her decision, rejecting Mr. Simpson's claims of evidential oversights.
Implications of the Ruling
This ruling provides clarity on the application of natural justice principles within trade union disciplinary proceedings. It reinforces the Certification Officer's role in overseeing union disciplinary matters and underscores the importance of a fair and unbiased process.
The case also highlights the challenges faced by unions in balancing internal decision-making with the need to maintain procedural fairness. The EAT noted that internal procedures cannot realistically be expected to be as fastidiously conducted as legal proceedings and that unions will be unlikely to have the level of independence that a regulator would have in disciplinary proceedings.
Read the entire judgement here: Mr Tom Simpson v Unite the Union [2025] EAT 149
