Employment Appeal Tribunal
An applicant's appeal from an order refusing her leave to amend her originating application to add a complaint of victimisation by union members on the grounds of her race was refused where s.2 and Part II of the Race Relations Act 1976 did not make the alleged act unlawful, and she was not a member of the union at the relevant time for the purposes of s.11.
An appeal by an applicant from a decision of a Chairman sitting alone at the Stratford Industrial Tribunal refusing her leave to amend her originating application ('IT1'). The undisputed facts were that the applicant, who was employed as a neighbourhood manager by Islington LBC, presented her IT1 on 14 September 1994 alleging racial harassment by the respondent ('the union') through the systematic dissemination of misinformation about alleged instances of misconduct perpetrated by her. The tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine whether her new claim of victimisation, based on an alleged incident in February 1995, could be brought under s.11 Race Relations Act 1976. It found that: (i) s.11 of the Act was the only section under which the applicant could found a claim; (ii) that she could not complain of an alleged incident after her resignation from the union on 21 December 1992 and; (iii) she was not entitled to pursue her victimisation claim because it was made after the issue of her IT1. Further, it was held that she had no cause of action against the union for vicarious liability in respect of actions taken against her by members (distinct from employees) of the union and against the individual union officials she sought to add as respondents there was insufficient evidence for a claim of victimisation.
The applicant appeared in person. Ian Scott instructed by the Director of Legal Services, UNISON, for the respondent.
[1997] ICR 121
