The Claimant was a member of the First Respondent, Unite the Union. He had worked for another union, the RMT, as an employment law solicitor. He wished to pursue claims against the RMT in 2016. He sought to obtain, “industrial and legal representation” from the First Respondent in respect of employment and personal injury claims against the RMT. The claims which he subsequently issued against the First Respondent arose from the way in which he asserted Unite dealt with his request for that representation; the conduct of some of the First Respondent’s officers, (some of whom were individual Respondents before the Tribunal) and the manner in which his complaints about those matters were dealt with by the First Respondent. The ET rejected his claims and concluded that the burden of proof had not shifted to the First Respondent in respect of one allegation of victimisation. The ET also determined that one email sent by the Claimant was not a protected act for the purposes of claims of victimisation. The Claimant appealed.

The EAT allowed the appeal. The ET had erred in its application of the burden of proof provisions. As to the second ground of appeal, in context and applying the correct legal principles, and on a fair reading of the relevant email, the Claimant had made an allegation of disability discrimination. The allegation was that the First Respondent had failed to adjust its processes and that as a result, the Claimant, a disabled person, suffered harm. This could be understood to be an allegation of disability discrimination.