The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) found that the Certification Officer (CO) erred in law by refusing to accept applications challenging trade union disciplinary proceedings without following proper statutory procedure. The appeal succeeded on grounds that the CO cannot reject applications on merit without following the proper statutory framework.

Background

The Appellant, formerly Chair of the London School of Economics branch of University and College Union (UCU), faced disciplinary action following three complaints: alleged bullying of a Regional Officer, refusal to permit an AGM motion during an EGM he chaired, and sharing information about three managers. After the union’s NEC Panel upheld the complaints and an Appeal Panel dismissed his appeal, the Appellant submitted applications to the Certification Officer alleging procedural breaches. The CO refused to accept these, claiming they were not “arguable.”

Judgment

Mr Justice Bourne held that the CO erred in law. The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 only permits the CO to “refuse to accept” applications where internal procedures haven’t been exhausted (s108B). For cases lacking merit, the CO must follow the statutory “striking out” procedure under s256ZA, which requires sending a “show cause” notice and giving parties opportunity to be heard. The CO’s practice of pre-emptively refusing applications deemed “not arguable” without following these procedures was unlawful. The appeal was allowed and applications remitted to the CO.

Endnote

This judgment clarifies the procedural safeguards protecting trade union members’ statutory rights to challenge disciplinary proceedings. It establishes important constraints on the Certification Officer’s gatekeeping function, ensuring applications receive proper consideration before dismissal. The EAT’s focus on procedural propriety reflects the statutory balance between efficient case management and protecting access to justice.

Read the full judgment of the Employment Appeal Tribunal: Chandra v The University and College Union [2025] EAT 70