Harrison v Kent CC [1995] ICR 434
Judgement for the case Harrison v Kent CC
Table Of Contents
Plaintiff worked for Defendant and had been a union member, shop steward and involved in strike disputes. When he applied for another job with Defendant, he was refused on the grounds of his previous activities.
He claimed that he had been refused employment for being a union member under s.137(1).
EAT allowed his claim, interpreting the section as applying to union activities as well as mere membership (even though the section only mentions refusal on the grounds of ‘membership’ and not ‘past activity).
Mummery LJ
Even though elsewhere in the act (e.g. s.146 and 152 dealing with dismissals) deal with sacking for membership and sacking for activity separately, the concepts are not mutually exclusive and overlap. Membership can mean more than just being registered with the union.
Since those who are more active in the union are more likely to be discriminated against, it would emasculate the act to exclude them from protection in terms of being refused a job.
For Further Study on Harrison v Kent CC
Labour Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge...
Need instant answers? Our AI exam tutor is here to help.
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get StartedSimilar Cases
Related Product Samples
These product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.
| Labour Law | Freedom Of Association Notes (13 pages) |
| Labour Law | Industrial Action Notes (19 pages) |
| Labour Law | Labour Discrimination Notes (64 pages) |
Labour Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge...
Since 2010, Oxbridge Notes has been a trusted education marketplace, supplying high-quality materials from top achievers at universities like Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Harvard, and Yale.