The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act (TULR(C)A) makes it unlawful for unions to discipline a member for a number of specific reasons. And that includes expulsion.

In Beaumont v Amicus MSF (IDS Brief 755), the employment appeal tribunal (EAT) said that the union had failed to do everything it could to reverse Mr Beaumont's expulsion. As a result, it had jurisdiction to hear his claim for compensation.

What had happened?

Mr Beaumont had been expelled from the union in February 2002, following which he lodged a claim with an employment tribunal in May that he had been 'unjustifiably disciplined' by the union.

The national executive committee subsequently decided (in September that year) that his expulsion should be rescinded, and conceded his case at a tribunal hearing in October. The tribunal made a declaration that he had been unjustifiably disciplined, along with an order for costs.

So why was he at the EAT?

Mr Beaumont now claimed that he had the right to go to the EAT to claim compensation for the union's failure to do everything it could to restore the 'status quo ante'. In particular, he said that: 

  • he was deprived of the benefits of membership for the period of his expulsion
  • he would be precluded from standing for various union positions for a number of years because of a loss of continuous membership
  • the union had failed to rescind a letter to his branch saying he should not be sent mailings
  • the union had failed to rescind a similar letter to the regional council
  • he should have been billed for subscriptions to ensure continuous membership.

What did the EAT decide?

The employment appeal tribunal said that although Mr Beaumont was deprived of union membership from February to October 2002, he had not made a claim during that time and there were therefore no steps that the union needed to take.

It also found that once the union had reinstated Mr Beaumont, he had been credited with subscriptions for the period of his expulsion, so that his second claim also failed. The fact that the union originally intended to charge him for that period and subsequently changed its mind was irrelevant.

This also dealt with his fifth complaint.

However, the EAT agreed with his allegations that the union had failed to rescind a number of letters to his branch and regional council. The first was dated 25 February from the General Secretary, instructing Mr Beaumont's branch not to address any material distributed on behalf of the union to him (except information about his right of appeal), and that he should be excluded from all future meetings at national, regional and branch level.

It also said he was not entitled to hold office or represent the union in any capacity. 
The EAT said that the union made no attempt to revoke that letter until a branch representative wrote on 20 December to the General Secretary, who then confirmed that Mr Beaumont had been reinstated as a member of the union. Unfortunately, the branch remained confused until the General Secretary wrote again on 3 April, clarifying the situation. Mr Beaumont made the same complaint in respect of communications to the London Regional Council.

Because the letters rescinding his expulsion were not as clear as the original letters, the EAT decided that the union had not taken all the steps that were necessary to rescind Mr Beaumont's expulsion from the union, and he was entitled to compensation.

What are the parameters for compensation?

The date for the compensation hearing has now to be fixed, limited to the two grounds on which the EAT found in his favour. The appeal tribunal made clear that its power to award compensation is limited by the principle of what it 'considers just and equitable in all the circumstances'.

But it rejected the union's argument that it was limited to considering compensation for the union's failure to take all the steps necessary to comply with the declaration by the tribunal. It said that it could not have been the intention of Parliament to prevent an applicant from recovering the compensation he would have got in the tribunal, just because the respondent fails to reverse the effects of the unjustifiable expulsion.

Equally, however, it did not accept Mr Beaumont's argument that he had the right to argue the merits of his expulsion and the rights and wrongs of his allegations against officials of the union at the compensation hearing.

It said that the compensation that it can award is compensation for the expulsion and its effects upon Mr Beaumont.