Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.

X

Fitzpatrick v BRB

[1992] ICR 221 (CA)

Case summary last updated at 17/02/2020 17:50 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team.

Judgement for the case Fitzpatrick v BRB

P got a job with BRB, but had omitted from her application form that she had been sacked after just 9 days from another company (F). BRB (following a newspaper report) discovered this along with the fact that she was an active unionist and had been involved in union activities while working for previous employers. BRB sacked her for failing to disclose her 9-day employment with F. P alleged that the real cause of the sacking was her trade union activities, which was automatically unfair dismissal under (forerunner to) s.152. CA allowed her claim, saying that the scope of s.152 extends to possible future union activities that the employer believes the employee will participate in, and there does not need to be a particular/precise activity that the employer takes exception to. 
 
Woolf LJ: The purpose of the subsection…is to protect those who engage in trade union activities and I can see no reason why that should not apply irrespective of whether the precise activities can be identified. 

Have you seen Oxbridge Notes' best Labour Law study materials?

Our law notes have been a popular underground sensation for 10 years:

  • Written by Oxford & Cambridge prize-winning graduates
  • Includes copious adademic commentary in summary form
  • Concise structure relating cases and statutes into an easy-to-remember whole
  • Covers all major cases for LLB exams
  • Satisfaction guaranteed refund policy
  • Recently updated
Labour Law Notes

Labour Law Notes >>