Weaver v National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education (200?) EAT is a UK labour law case, concerning racial discrimination.
The National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education refused to give advice or assistance to a woman lecturer who wanted to bring a claim for racial harassment[1] against a fellow worker at Bournville College of Further Education because the worker could lose his job.
The Employment Tribunal upheld the trade union’s decision not to assist. Thus a member making a complaint of workplace harassment against a fellow employee was not entitled to union advice and assistance. The Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the decision and extended the decision to cover complaints of sexual harassment.[2]
Lord Triesman contributed to establishing the extant precedent.[2]
Harvey's Industrial Relations and Employment Law - the authoritative source for all legal matters relating to race and sex discrimination, trade union and other employment issues, contains judicial decisions pertaining to conditions/rules/policies that are discriminatory and subject to penalties under the Race Relations and Sex Discrimination Acts and also conditions/rules/policies that while being discriminatory do not fall foul of those Acts.
One of the latter type cases relates to the Weaver v National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education case, which states, "union justified in not assisting applicants discrimination claim since it would have jeopardised the job of a fellow member." (Harvey Q 90 (Q 213)
The Industrial Tribunal's judgement was that NATFHE could rely on the justification defence, which was that it has a legitimate duty to protect the tenure of its members, to avoid conflicts in its representation of members and to avoid breaches of obligations to members whose tenure is at risk which outweighs the limited discriminatory effect of the condition imposed.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal, chaired by Justice Popplewell, upheld the Industrial Tribunal decision, as did Lord Justice May in an application for the case to be heard before the Court of Appeal.
The original judgement was made in 1987 and is still the precedent for cases of this kind, namely, that union members who make complaints to the employer of racist or sexist harassment against member(s) of the same union cannot obtain union advice or assistance and this applies irrespective of the merit of the complaint. This conclusion arose from the evidence at the tribunal from a NATFHE official who stated that: if a complaint is based on race against a worker, the trade union would not offer the facility of assistance; and that was a rule across the board. However, as stated by the Tribunal, "that evidence can only be understood in the context of his (the official) describing the broader policy of the union not to put tenure at risk. There is no evidence whatsoever that the union imposed the condition in race cases any differently than in cases of assault or theft or sexual harassment.”
This policy of not providing assistance to complainants of racist or sexist harassment, inscribed in law, illustrated the ineffectiveness of trades unions' policies on racism and sexism. In the event of the union offering assistance to the complainant it would be in violation of the union's duty to protect the tenure of the accused member.
For The Industrial Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal reports, and the documentary evidence submitted by the applicant and respondent to the Industrial Tribunal see www.legalferret.net