Mortlake said:
Sole on Ice
Do you agree that the
Unison v Jervis case seems to be about a man who's case was turned-down for backing by a volunteer rep, writing a memo to him after she had "spoken to" the paid official? This was a case Mr Jervis went-on to win with a private lawyer.
I am perplexed by you quoting this case as it was eventually decided in the unions favour! The case relates to one where the member took the union to the ET for failure to represent and he also claimed sex and race discrimination. He lost most of his points at the ET, but the ET did find in his favour on one point. As was the union's right they appealed to the EAT and they won so that the original decision of the ET was overturned - the EAT did not find that the union had acted unlawfully in refusing him, representation.
In your copy of the EAT judgement you underline the following paragraah as if it something thiat that proves your point
Mr Jervis told us at the outset of his brief and helpful submissions that he had experienced a great deal of stress and depression as a result of the way he has been treated and that that stress and depression have continued. We sympathize with that and, we sympathize with the fact that he has had to cope with this case, including the appeal to us, without assistance. Nevertheless, it seems to us that the law is very clear and that the Tribunal's decision in his favour cannot be sustained
All the EAT do it acknowledge he has experienced stress and depression and they sympathise with that and the difficulties of bring the case on his own. However, the EAT do not say the union treated him badly, or wrongly, nor do the EAT say the union was legally negligent. Indeed the EAT says "it seems to us that the law is very clear and that the Tribunal's decision in his favour cannot be sustained."
You appear to have totally misunderstood the EAT's decision.
Mortlake said:
Do you agree that Unison should have apologised and paid his expenses, instead of fighting his complaint all the way through the Certification Office and employment tribunal system, and ending-up with a city solicitor and
smart barrister from Matrix Chambers? This is against a nurse from the nightshift representing himself and trying to recover from depression
Well from what I can see with the case at the EAT, the union did not act unlawfully and the union quite rightly defended itself. If the union is going to defend itself against claims then it is reasonable they use specialist barristers to do so. Indeed most unions actually employ barristers to present cases at ETs whether they are running cases for their memebrs or they are defending themselves against claims such as this. Furthermore add to this that this case was an appeal at the Employment Appeals Tribunal, a higher court than an ET, you would expert extra counsel to be employed.
So why should the union have apologised and paid his expenses?
As for the case going to the Certification Officer, I've checked the website and I can find no case of Jervis against this union.
This case seems to be one of a disgruntled member who did not get what they wanted for their union and subsequently tried to sue the union for acting unlawfully. The legal system subsequently found the union acted lawfully. I don't see your point.
To be using this case to demonstrate that unions are rubbish and don't help their memebrs is either a misunderstanding of this case or a deliberate attempt to mislead. Either way quoting this case to support you argument is just plain wrong.
