The Claimant was a pilot and also a member of the pilots' trade union, BALPA. During his employment with the Respondent he suggested that BALPA might have a role in representing the interests of pilots within the workplace which was not received well. He then left but applied for a job at the Respondent several years later only to be rejected. He claimed that that was because of his previous trade union activities which is unlawful under section 137(1)(a) TULRCA and the ET agreed. The Respondent appealed contending the ET had (1) erroneously adopted too broad an approach to trade union membership for these purposes, either as a matter of statutory construction or on the facts; alternatively (2) failed to conduct the required exercise for determining the reason for the refusal, or had failed to provide adequate reasons for its conclusion.

The EAT dismissed the appeal. Adopting a broad, purposive approach to section 137(1)(a), the ET had found that the Respondent's refusal to employ the Claimant was because of his earlier activities as an advocate for BALPA's representational role in the workplace and it had been open to the ET to find that such activities were incidental to the Claimant's trade union membership and thus that the refusal was in breach of the statutory protection. Further, in determining the reason for refusal to employ the Claimant, the ET had engaged in a reasoned adjudication of the relevant evidence and had adequately explained its conclusions.