Former Metrolink Operator (RATP) Loses Employment Court Case

[185]

For anyone interested, the Royal Courts of Justice overturned Metrolink's (2nd) appeal today for the final time. Mr Morris has well and truly won his case.

Royal Courts of Justice Release, today 14th June 2018:
http://www.workersofengland.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Metrolink-for-hand-down.pdf

This relates to an issue reported in 2016 in the MEN also posted on here:
https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...nk-unfair-dismissal-compensation-dad-11033651

They appealed using every loophole they could, and still lost.

The case revolved around a diary, which many think was deliberately left open for all to see, which had derisory comments written in it about several staff. The comments also revealed that the company had seriously breached the basics of fair recruitment during a reshuffle. Those staff who it concerned took a photo of the comments, sent it to the union rep who then used it as part of a grievance against the manager who turned the table and had him sacked for a "Data Protection breach".

 

[WatcherZero]

Not quite whats in that ruling, according to that judgement;

Someone took a photo of a work diary, Mr Morris then requested that the photo be sent to himself (judges say he should have had a reasonable suspicion that it was illegally obtained), he then held on to it for a month including sharing it with his wife who tweeted it, after a week he did inform HR that he was in possession of it but according to the judges making the ruling not in a manner that represented the moral and ethical dilemma he should have had over the possession of illegally obtained information but more in a boasting arrogant manner. He then used the contents of the diary to which he should not have been privy in the course of his union duties (putting the contents into a union headed letter). The judges agreed that it was a breech of union-employer relationship rules and would normally be grounds for summary dismissal, but that it was an exceptional case as the contents of the diary showed bias in an interview process by having evaluation remarks from someone who wasn't the interviewer. The judge did dismiss the data protection argument saying as it was a work diary not a personal diary it didn't constitute personal information, however noted that the company didn't attempt to seriously follow that line of argument.