Employment Tribunal Victory

14th October 2002, London

This morning at an Employment tribunal hearing in London, David Beaumont, MSF member of 20 years standing, won a declaration that he had been unjustifiably disciplined by the National Executive Committee of amicus-MSF.

This was expected as his union executive, after fighting against his case right to the wire, finally conceded last Thursday that they had broken the law. However it was not expected that the Tribunal would award David his full costs, £1,380.40, which they did unanimously. It is rare enough for costs to be awarded in such cases, you have to establish that one party was vexatious or acted unreasonably, but such an amount is unheard of for someone presenting their own case. Read David's application for costs here to see the unreasonable behaviour.

It is widely thought that amicus MSF conceded in order to avoid public discussion of the 97 separate assertions made on David's web sites that MSF had broken the law or its own rules . These assertions include

Theft of £10,000 a year from the union by the Head of Finance
Making false annual returns to the Trade Union Certification Officer
Theft of four cases of wine by the General Secretary Roger Lyons
A cover up by National Executive Committee member John Gardner in obstructing auditors access to the Head of Finance's private bank accounts
Pension top up payments to Anne Gibson, Larry Brooks and Tony Whiteley, of up to £200 000, without the approval of the pension trustees
Election rigging in the 2001 Women’s National Executive Committee election, 'won' by Leonie Cooper

Read the full list here in David's Further and Better Particulars.

The Tribunal was particularly scathing about amicus-MSF's behaviour. The Chair said (notes made by us at the hearing):

"In order to award costs the Tribunal must consider that the party has behaved unreasonably. The Respondent has failed to disclose documents which were, in the opinion of the Tribunal, relevant to the case. Instead, it has tried to postpone on a number of occasions and attempted to put off the "evil day". The applicant was reinstated on 14 September but the respondent waited until the eleventh hour before agreeing to concede, meaning that the applicant incurred unnecessary costs. The tribunal has, we find, to a certain extent been rather abused by the respondents. The respondent has breached the requirements of regulation 10 of the Tribunal codes which states that the overriding objective of the rules is to enable cases to be dealt with justly, expeditiously and fairly. The respondent breached this on expense and expedition grounds. The respondent did not conduct proceedings in such a way as to save expense and time. Under the regulations, the parties are required to assist the tribunal to further this overriding objective. The respondent has not done this, and instead has run up expense and tried to prolong things. The applicant's claim for costs is modest, and costs are awarded in the sum claimed, £1,381.40. The respondents may appeal against this decision. The declaration is made in the terms agreed, that the applicant was unjustifiably disciplined when he was expelled, contrary to section 64 of the act."

David had suggested a settlement with amicus MSF the week before: He would not pursue compensation if they cancelled the outstanding disciplinary against him (for trying to get Ken Livingstone nominated as mayor 3 years ago). He thought that, if granted, the discipline inflicted upon others in that witch-hunt would have to be ended as well. The NEC's solicitors saw through this ploy, refusing with the message "if the union gave you a complete amnesty on prior matters this would impact on the other cases". Clearly the old MSF NEC have no intention of putting an end to the witch-hunts in the new amicus union.

The next stage for David is to make an application for compensation to an Employment Appeal Tribunal, armed with his declaration of today. Coincidentally general secretary Lyons, desperate for further part-time jobs, may well be sitting on the bench of such an EAT shortly (click here for that story). Lyons and the NEC do not seem to have realised that an EAT will need to consider the details of David's 97 assertions in order to award compensation. The minimum award for unjustifiable discipline is £5,600, David plans to spend this on free T Shirts in time for Annual Conference 2003 and on encouraging Lyons to retire early from his main job....

David has promised that any compensation he does receive will be used to benefit and improve his union and he will account for all of it. The disclaimer at the very bottom of this page may be taken off!

Read David's own and supporting witness statements:

David's

John Hogan's

Roland Rance's

Hugh MacGrillen's

Other famous MSF Employment Tribunal cases
Posted by www.rogerlyons.com on 14th October 2002