• Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
Call us now: 01243 836 840   [email protected]
Pure Employment Law
  • Who We Are
    • Nicola Brown
    • Peter Stevens
    • David Jones
    • Debbie Poole
    • Linda Nye
    • Brenda Cherry
  • For Employers
    • Advice on HR and People issues
    • Investigations, Hearings and Appeals
    • Restructuring and Redundancy
    • Defending Employment Tribunal Claims
    • Dismissal of Senior Executives
    • Contracts, Handbooks and Policies
    • Employment Law Training
  • For Employees
    • Settlement Agreements
    • Workplace Issues including Disciplinary and Grievance
    • Bringing an Employment Tribunal Claim
  • Employment Law Events
  • Legal Updates
  • Testimonials
  • Vacancies
  • Contact us
  • Search
  • Menu Menu

Can an employer veto an employee’s choice of companion?

27th September 2013

The statutory right to be accompanied to a disciplinary or grievance hearing is well-established and as most of you will be aware, employees can ‘reasonably request’ a trade union representative or a colleague of their choice as their companion (section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999). 

In the case of Toal v GB Oils, the employer did not agree with Mr Toal’s choice of companion and he was forced to be accompanied by someone else. Was this a breach of his statutory right to be accompanied?

Mr Toal had raised a grievance and made a request to be accompanied by his union representative, Mr Lean. The employer refused this request, and Mr Toal was accompanied by a colleague instead (then at his grievance appeal he was accompanied by a different union representative).

Mr Toal brought a claim to the Employment Tribunal arguing that GB Oils had breached his statutory right to be accompanied, in that they had denied him the companion of his choice.

GB Oils argued that as the right to be accompanied applies where the employee “reasonably requests” to be accompanied, it did not apply here because it was not reasonable for Mr Lean to be the companion. It is not clear what their problem was with Mr Lean attending.

The Employment Tribunal did not agree with GB Oils’ submission but did reject Mr Toal’s claim, saying that if there had been a breach of the statutory right, Mr Toal had waived that breach by going ahead with another companion.

Mr Toal appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). The EAT agreed with the Tribunal that GB Oils could not argue that it was not reasonable for Mr Lean to be the companion. However, they did not agree that Mr Toal had waived his right to be accompanied by Mr Lean.

The EAT said that the law is clear and that employees have an absolute right to choose their companion. The wording of the legislation only required the request to be accompanied to be reasonable, not the choice of companion.

GB Oils argued that the ACAS Code of Practice specifically refers to situations where the choice of companion may not be reasonable, such as someone whose presence would prejudice the hearing. However the EAT said that the ACAS Code could not be used to alter the meaning of legislation where the wording of the legislation was clear. The legislation did not require the choice of companion to be reasonable.

Mr Toal had therefore succeeded in showing a breach. However, there was a sting in the tail for him – the EAT said that in their view, although his statutory right had been breached, compensation would only be nominal (they gave the example of £2, but said it was for the Tribunal to decide). Given that the maximum compensation for breach of the right to be accompanied is limited to two weeks’ pay in any event, it seems that the EAT were sending out a clear message that they did not consider this to be a serious breach.

This case is helpful to employers but does leave an unsatisfactory position when there are concerns about an employee’s choice of companion – should the employer deny the request as GB Oils did, knowing that compensation would be minimal (and that most employees would probably not bring a claim) but knowing that it is a breach of a statutory right? But also, does this give adequate protection for employees who may be denied the right to be accompanied in other circumstances?

We expect that despite the low value of this case, it may well be appealed to the Court of Appeal. We will of course update you on any future developments.

If you would like to talk through a situation you are dealing with, or if you need advice on any aspect of employment law, please contact any member of the Pure Employment Law team (01243 836840 or [email protected]).

Please note that this update is not intended to be exhaustive or be a substitute for legal advice. The application of the law in this area will often depend upon the specific facts and you are advised to seek specific advice on any given scenario.

 

 

Share this article
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on WhatsApp
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Reddit
  • Share by Mail
https://www.pureemploymentlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Pure-Employment-Law-logo.jpg 0 0 Nicola Brown https://www.pureemploymentlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Pure-Employment-Law-logo.jpg Nicola Brown2013-09-27 11:42:362014-12-03 15:29:58Can an employer veto an employee’s choice of companion?

Join our mailing list

* = required field
Mailing Lists


Recent Legal Updates

  • Discrimination found in gender critical belief case 27th July 2022
  • Court of Appeal overturns Tesco fire and rehire injunction 27th July 2022
  • Changes to fit notes 27th July 2022
  • Where are we with the fire and rehire Code of Practice? 27th July 2022
  • Can long Covid be a disability? 29th June 2022
Link to: Contact Us

Any questions? Why not get in touch!

Our advice is always given in plain English without any waffle, and we focus on providing practical solutions to our clients’ problems.

Contact us

LEGAL INFORMATION

Pure Employment Law | 1 Little London, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 1PH
[email protected] | Tel: 01243 836840

Pure Employment Law is the trading name of Pure Employment Law Limited, registered in England and Wales with company number 07134294 and whose registered office is 1 Little London, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 1PH. Pure Employment Law Limited is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with registration number 533794. A list of the company’s directors is available for inspection at the registered office

DISCLAIMER

The information contained in this website is for general information purposes only. The information is provided by Pure Employment Law and while we endeavour to keep the information up to date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained on the website for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.

Privacy Policy | Cookies Policy | Terms & Conditions | How to make a complaint | Sitemap

© Pure Employment Law 2022

Scroll to top

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies as defined in our cookie policy.

Accept Cookie Policy

Cookie and Privacy Settings



How we use cookies

We may request cookies to be set on your device. We use cookies to let us know when you visit our websites, how you interact with us, to enrich your user experience, and to customize your relationship with our website.

Click on the different category headings to find out more. You can also change some of your preferences. Note that blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience on our websites and the services we are able to offer.

Essential Website Cookies

These cookies are strictly necessary to provide you with services available through our website and to use some of its features.

Because these cookies are strictly necessary to deliver the website, refusing them will have impact how our site functions. You always can block or delete cookies by changing your browser settings and force blocking all cookies on this website. But this will always prompt you to accept/refuse cookies when revisiting our site.

We fully respect if you want to refuse cookies but to avoid asking you again and again kindly allow us to store a cookie for that. You are free to opt out any time or opt in for other cookies to get a better experience. If you refuse cookies we will remove all set cookies in our domain.

We provide you with a list of stored cookies on your computer in our domain so you can check what we stored. Due to security reasons we are not able to show or modify cookies from other domains. You can check these in your browser security settings.

Google Analytics Cookies

These cookies collect information that is used either in aggregate form to help us understand how our website is being used or how effective our marketing campaigns are, or to help us customize our website and application for you in order to enhance your experience.

If you do not want that we track your visit to our site you can disable tracking in your browser here:

Other external services

We also use different external services like Google Webfonts, Google Maps, and external Video providers. Since these providers may collect personal data like your IP address we allow you to block them here. Please be aware that this might heavily reduce the functionality and appearance of our site. Changes will take effect once you reload the page.

Google Webfont Settings:

Google Map Settings:

Google reCaptcha Settings:

Vimeo and Youtube video embeds:

Other cookies

The following cookies are also needed - You can choose if you want to allow them:

Privacy Policy

You can read about our cookies and privacy settings in detail on our Privacy Policy Page.

Privacy Policy
Accept settingsHide notification only