Head of policy dismissed after Observer interview about union recognition: automatically unfair
A head of policy was automatically unfairly dismissed after giving a newspaper interview criticising her employer's approach to union recognition. The tribunal awarded £6,959 in basic award.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #trade-union-activity
- #press-interview
- #union-recognition
- #pilon-clause
- #garden-leave
- #basic-award-only
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as head of policy and participation from 5 May 2019 until 10 October 2022.
- She was a member of the IWGB union and involved in a campaign for union recognition.
- On 9 October 2022, an article quoting the claimant appeared in the Observer, criticising the respondent's approach to unionisation.
- The respondent sent the claimant a letter on 10 October 2022 headed 'immediate termination of employment' and paid her in lieu of notice.
- The tribunal found that the claimant's comments were legitimate trade union activity and that the dismissal was automatically unfair under section 152 TULRCA.
- The claimant was awarded a basic award of £6,959; no compensatory award was sought.
Timeline
-
Employment start
The claimant began employment with the respondent.
-
CAC application
The IWGB applied to the Central Arbitration Committee for statutory trade union recognition.
-
Claimant resigned
The claimant resigned and gave three months' notice, with her last day intended to be 13 October 2022.
-
Journalist contact
The claimant was contacted by a journalist from the Observer, facilitated by the IWGB.
-
Article published
The Observer published an article quoting the claimant, accusing the respondent of hypocrisy over union recognition.
-
Dismissal
The respondent sent the claimant a letter headed 'immediate termination of employment', ending her employment early.
-
Claim presented
The claimant presented her claim to the employment tribunal.
-
Preliminary hearing (amendment)
Employment Judge Stewart granted the claimant's application to amend her claim to include a detriment claim.
-
Preliminary hearing (strike out)
Employment Judge Russell dismissed the respondent's applications to strike out or for a deposit order.
-
Final hearing start
The final merits hearing began before Employment Judge Codd.
-
Judgment
Employment Judge Codd found the claimant was dismissed and that the dismissal was automatically unfair under section 152 TULRCA, awarding a basic award of £6,959.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's comments to a newspaper constituted 'activities of an independent trade union' under section 152 TULRCA, and if so, whether her dismissal was automatically unfair.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed and that the dismissal was automatically unfair because the reason (or principal reason) for the dismissal was that she had taken part in the activities of an independent trade union at an appropriate time.
The key reason was that the claimant's interview with the Observer, in which she criticised the respondent's approach to unionisation, was a legitimate trade union activity. The respondent's decision to terminate her employment with immediate effect was therefore automatically unfair.
Compensation:
- Basic award: £6,959
- No compensatory award was sought.
Lessons & takeaways
- Speaking to the press about union recognition issues can be protected trade union activity, even if the employer disagrees with the comments.
- Employers should think carefully before dismissing an employee who has made public statements about union matters – it risks an automatic unfair dismissal finding.
- A contractual payment in lieu of notice does not prevent a dismissal from being a dismissal for the purposes of an unfair dismissal claim.
When a press interview becomes protected activity
This case shows that employees who speak out about union recognition in the media may be protected by employment law, even if their employer finds the comments unwelcome. The claimant, a head of policy with three years' service, was involved in a campaign for union recognition by the IWGB union. After she gave an interview to the Observer criticising the respondent's approach to unionisation, she was sent a letter headed 'immediate termination of employment' and paid in lieu of her notice period.
The tribunal found that her comments were legitimate trade union activity. The dismissal was therefore automatically unfair under section 152 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The respondent argued that the claimant had resigned and that the payment in lieu meant there was no dismissal, but the tribunal rejected this.
What the employer could have done differently
The respondent could have avoided this outcome by recognising that the claimant's interview was protected activity. Instead of terminating her employment, they could have addressed any concerns through a less drastic process, such as a discussion or a formal warning. The fact that the claimant was already working out her notice after resigning did not give the employer a free hand to end her employment early for a reason connected to trade union activities.
Why this matters for similar claims
This decision reinforces that the protection for trade union activities is strong. Employees who are dismissed for taking part in union activities – including speaking to the press about union recognition – can bring a claim for automatic unfair dismissal, which does not require the usual two years' service. The basic award of £6,959 reflects the claimant's age, length of service, and weekly pay. No compensatory award was sought, but in other cases, compensation can be significantly higher.
Similar cases
Security officer with 17 years' service dismissed for refusing hand sanitiser checks: unfair but heavily reduced award
A security officer who refused to carry out hand sanitiser checks was unfairly dismissed due to a flawed investigation, but his 75% contribution and a 90% Polkey reduction meant he received only £5,281.
Unfair dismissal claim struck out: less than two years' service and no garden leave
A technical development manager who believed he was on garden leave had his unfair dismissal claim struck out because he had less than two years' service and the effective date of termination was clear.
Garden leave without a clause: employer's deduction for breach was unlawful
An assistant manager who was placed on garden leave without a contractual clause had his final week's pay unlawfully deducted. The tribunal awarded £538 for notice pay but dismissed his unfair dismissal claim as out of time.
Dismissed for dishonest call to employer's solicitors: union convener loses unfair dismissal claim
A warehouse operative and union convener was fairly dismissed after falsely claiming to be a union member's representative when calling the employer's solicitors. The tribunal rejected his claims of automatic and ordinary unfair dismissal.