Key Facts
- •Mr. Embery, a long-standing FBU member, was subject to an internal disciplinary investigation.
- •He disputed the interpretation of FBU rules, leading to a referral to the Executive Council (EC) under rule C13.
- •The EC delegated the matter to a disciplinary sub-committee, which decided against Mr. Embery's interpretation.
- •Mr. Embery complained to the Certification Officer (CO) that the FBU breached rule C13 by not referring the dispute to the Standing Orders Committee.
- •The CO struck out Mr. Embery's complaint, finding it had no reasonable prospect of success and was misconceived.
- •Mr. Embery appealed to the EAT.
Legal Principles
A trade union's rulebook is a contract between its members, interpreted using general contract principles, but considering context and reasonable member expectations.
Kelly v The Musicians Union [2020] EWCA Civ 736, Heatons Transport (St Helens) Ltd v Transport General Workers Union [1972] IRLR 25, Evangelou v McNicol [2016] EWCA Civ 817, Jacques v AUEW [1986] ICR 683
The CO's power to strike out an application is similar to an Employment Tribunal's power under rule 37(1).
Eszias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust [2007] EWCA Civ 330, Easyair Ltd v Opal Telecom Ltd [2009] EWHC 339 (Ch)
Outcomes
The EAT dismissed Mr. Embery's appeal.
The CO did not err in her construction of rule C13. The EAT found that the CO's interpretation was consistent with the reasonable understanding of a FBU member and that the rule did not give Mr. Embery an automatic right of appeal to the Standing Orders Committee.